THe Church of God which so journeth at Rome, to the &c.]I. Two things may be observed from the very In­scription of this Epistle. First, The equality that was as well between these two Churches themselves, as the Governors thereof, called Elders of the Church, and Bishops; there being at this time no Superiority or prece­dency, which notwithstanding the Bishops of Rome have since then affected. Secondly, That the Elders of both by themselves, without any extraordinary Bishop placed over them, did govern as well the Church of Rome, as that of Corinth; it being very unlikely, that the names of them should have been concealed in [Page 40] this Inscription, had either of the Churches had any one at that time in such eminency of place, or power, above the other Ru­lers. For Clement was not now any singular, orAs he was not formerly at Philippi See H. Grotius up­on the follow­ing Scripture. Phil. 4.3. 2 Tim. 4.21. onely Bishop of Rome, nor placed above the Presb [...]tery thereof. But one of those Ministers, whose help the Apostles used in founding of Churches, Paul calling him his fellow-laborer; as was Linus also without question, whom he mentions too; and both whom the Ecclesiasticall History makes Bishops of Rome, some placing them both before Anacletus, and of the two, Linus first; some making Clement last of the three; but others again put him be­fore either of the other two.Cl. Salmas. dissert. de Epi­scop. & Pres­byt. cap. 4. Which confusion the learned S [...]l­masius conceives to proceed from no other cause, then that they were not particular and onely Bishops, as the most would have them to be, but some of those many Presbyters, who were ap­pointed to govern the Church of Rome with equall and joynt power. And truly the Reverend B^P Ʋsher Dissert. de Ignatii, &c. scri­ptis, cap. 18. in addend. p. 137. q [...]um ista scripsit Clemens, Epis. & Pres. communia ad­h [...]c videantur fuisse nomina. Nicol. Vedel. Exercit. 8. in epist Ignat ad Maria. 11. ca. 3. acknowledgeth, that when this Epistle was written by Clement the names of Bishop and Presbyter seemed to be common; as indeed thereby it appeares: though Vedelius, the Professor of Geneva grant that this distinction was alreadyjam invaluisse. grown for some good while to be in use in Clement's time: which how it can be, Clement's banish­ment, nay, Martyrdome, happening very presently upon the writing thereof, as is most probablyv. Dn. Ju [...]ium in [...] in Notas ad Clementem. conjectured, I leave to others to consider of. However it is a very good observation which the learned M^r Yong maketh, that Clement being to exhort the disagreeing and factious part of the Church of Corinth to compliance and brotherly condescension in love and humility, he makes no use of any power from his own, but gently entreats them through the whole Epistle in the generall Name of the Church of Rome, never mentioning himself, or his own autho­rity any way: So unfitting a thing did those holy men of the Primitive times conceive it to be, [ [...],] that I may use Clement's own words, imperiously and arrogantly to advance themselves over the flock and people of Christ, al­lowing such no part or portion at all in him: contrary to what we have seen, and have been very sensible of in our dayes.

II. The calamities and sad accidents which have happened unto us.] All antiquity being wholly silent about the time when this [Page 41] Epistle was written, learned M^r Yong from these words, as also from a main circumstance in Clement's relation of Paul's suffe­ring, doth make a probable conjecture that it was sent by him in the time of his banishment to the Church of Corinth, which was about the beginning of Trajan, or not long after, some two yeares before his martyrdome.Baron. ad An. XCV. § 1. The great Annalist refers the writing of it to the twelfth yeare of Domitian, some six, or seven years sooner: But his Eminency pleases not to vouchsafe any ground or reason for his so doing. Yet his industry is very high­ly to be honored, for that despairing ever to find an entire Copy, he first attempted to collect out of the Fathers writings, and set together, the unvaluable reliques of this [...]. Euseb. l. 3. c. 12. Eccl. Hist. [...]. Niceph. Call. lib. 3. cap. 18. admirable and [...]. Iren. li. 3. c. 3. apud Euseb. absolute, (for so it was esteemed of old,) and withall,Valdè utilis. Hieron. in Ca­talog. Script. Ecclesiast. most usefull Epi­stle; as it were the fragments and shattered parcells of some in­estimable, but almost decayed statue; being not the lesse to be respected, for that it had undergon the same fate, which, by the meanes of bad times and worse hands, many an excellent and choice piece hath met with, to the unspeakable loss and damage of posterity.

Abominable and ungodly sedition.]III.Baronius makes the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, wherein he taxes them for their1 Cor. 1.10. [...]. schisms and1 Cor. 3.3. [...]. factions, Ad annum LVII. § 2. to be written neer forty years before this of Clement. It should seem very strange, that notwithstand­ing the earnest endevours of the Apostles, and their ministers in the Gospel, for settling of peace and unitie in this Church, their divisions should revive and again get head, with more strength and obstinacy, and grow more inveterate, as appeares by this present abominable and ungodly sedition and breach among them; [...]. Clem. so soon did the enemy that evil one, begin to sow his tares even in the purest times and Congregations, and so unhappily they thrived.Eccl. hist. li. 3. cap. 12. To work them to an agreement was this Epistle pur­posely written, as Eusebius tells us out of Hegesippus, a very an­tient writer, (not the supposititious that is extant,) and Irenaeus lib. III. cap. III.

For who hath ever sojourned among you, that &c.]IV. This whole passage, and others following, are cited from hence by the other Clement of Alexandria, who lived after this Clement, [...]. I mean flou­rished, somewhat above CXX. years.

V. Them that are Governours over you.] The word in Greek is [...].Eccl. hist. l III. cap. 32. Catal. Scrip. Eccl. Eusebius, and out of him Hierom observes that not one­ly the character of the phrase in this Epistle is like that in the Epistle to the Ebrews, but that many even entire sences, and very same words are heer borrowed from thence. So that Euse­bius dare hereupon almost undertake, that Clement was the Translator of that Epistle out of the Ebrew (in which language it is vulgarly thought Paul wrote it to his countrymen,) into Greek, as we now have it, rather then Luke. Yet however, this word hath a differing sence heer from the use and signification of it in the last to the Ebrews, where it is taken for the Presbyters, or Elders of the Church, as most plainly appeares by the in­spection,Ebr. 13.7.17. and comparing of the 7. and 17. verses. For in this place, and through the whole Epistle, where it is to be found, I am sure seven times at least, we must understand it of the Civill Magistrates, and their power, called [...] in Paul's language, to whom he bids every soul to be subject: Rom. 13.1. Tit. 3.1. Imperatoribus. Jun. Praefectis. Salmas. and of whose suffering, and death, Clement making mention, he doth tell us in this fol­lowing discourse, that it was [...], under the Empe­rors, or their Governours. Neither signifies it otherwise in the other places. And so in like manner neither is the Presbyterie of the Church intended by [...] in the words next fol­lowing, but the elderly sort onely, as opposed to the youth: which whole sentence of Clement is well illustrated by what we read in the Proëm to the Laws of Charondas of Catana: Intēr Fragm. Pythagoreo­rum. [...] [...]. [...]. himself elswhere also joyning together [...], and [...]. i. e. The Rulers, or Magistrates; the aged sort; and the young men: And yet the Order it self is abundantly asserted by him, as in opposition to solitary Episcopacy, in this Epistle, as you will hear in what follows.

VI. Ʋnblameable and pure conscience, loving their own husbands.] These very expressions, as also many others besides, as may be seen in what followes, are borrowed out of Clement by Poly­carpus, that antient and faithfull witness of Christ, and the Scholler of John his beloved Disciple, in his Epistle to the Phi­lippians. This note is added, to this end and purpose, not onely to prove this Epistle to be genuine, and of that antiquity which [Page 43] we believe it to be of, (which notwithstanding is sufficiently already made to appeare;) but also that a certain authority, and respect, given to it in time of most remote antiquity, (for in after ages it was publiquely read inEuseb. lib. 3. cap. 12. Epi­phan. contra Ebionitas. Hieronym. in Catal. Congregations, and Churches,) may be observed, and taken notice of. For to que­stion the Epistle of Polycarpus for spurious, and a supposititious birth, none, that I know of, have undertaken to do it. What passagesHist. lib. 3. [...]. Photius Patr. CP. in Biblioth. num. 126. Eusebius, and that diligent Greek Patriarch in his Bibliotheque long-ago cited out of it, are yet to be found in it. And the Church Historians of Madenburg, refer us to the dili­gent antiquitatis scrutatores, themselves having little, or nothing to any purpose, to say against it: especially if we do consider the simplicity and plainness1 Cor. 2.1.4. Andr. Rivetus Crit. Sacri li. 2. ca. 3. edit. ultima. of the Apostolicall times, and style. They had better hearts; we indeed better tongues, and pens. But neither doth the judicious D^r Rivet, that singular orna­ment sometime of Leyden, take upon him to censure it. As for that Greek copy of it, onely mentioned by him,Edit. Ignatia­nae, p. 243. & Not ad Poly­carp. num. 1. what the In­comparable D^r Ʋsher observed concerning it, and the credit it might have, all that perished in the late great schath-fire at Oxford, accompanied with other rare parcells of Church anti­quity, to the no small grief of all them, that make search and enquiry after matters of this nature.

The beloved hath eaten, and drunken, &c.]VII. This short passage is the summe of three whole verses out of the XXXII. Chapter of Deuteronomy. It is the manner of Clement, and indeed of the Fathers after him generally, to cite places of Holy Scripture, not alwayes in their own words and sentences, as they are con­ceived there; thinking the authority of it sufficiently enforced upon their hearers, or readers, if, keeping still close to the true meaning and intention thereof, they did not constantly render the very language of the Text, but sometimes make use of ex­pressions, though not disagreeing, yet not the same [...] and [...], or, as we say, word for word.D. de legib. l. Scire leges. & l. 2. C. de Comm. legat. For the great Lawyer tells us, Leges non ex verbis, sed ex mente intelligendas. And if this will not be enough to render them excusable, the very Apo­stles themselves, (examples fittest to follow, and ablest, if any, to justifie,) in unquestioned writ have done the like, as both M^r Yong hath well observed upon this Apostolicall Writer, and [Page 44] every one knowes who hath been but diligent to compare with the Old Testament places quoted thence into the New. They did likewise, not without the same warrant, to make up one perfect sense, or period, collect, and heap together pieces or portions taken from severall places and passages of Scripture, as if they had been there joyned together, and followed one ano­ther. And this our Lord Christ himself doth, Matth. 21.5. Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an asse, and a colt, the foal of an asse. For the former words, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, are taken out of Isai. 62.11. what followes is to be found in Zech. 9.9. To have noted thus much, will serve, as a sufficient [...], to prepare the ordina­ry and less knowing Reader, and withall prevent his being troubled, if he find not all quotations, alleged heer in what fol­lows, just agreeing with those Bibles, which we have commonly in our hands. And they that do not observe this,Exerc. Sacr. lib. 3. cap. 4. Fieri non po­test quin impingant, saith the excellent Heinsius.

VIII. If thou offer aright, and dost not divide aright, &c.] They, that onely turn over the English Bibles, will the less wonder at this reading, when they shall understand, that not onely Paul him­self, the Evangelists and Apostles, with all the antientest Fa­thers of either language; but even the learned Jewes themselves, which lived presently after Christ, and at the time of the last Captivity, used for the most part that Greek Translation, which is commonly called, The Septuagint, from whence this Text is taken. To instance in one or two places of an hundred: In the Gospel, where it is said, that Christ came to Nazareth, and ac­cording to his custome went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read; and that there being delivered to him the book of the Prophet Esaias, he opened it, and found the place where it was written. Luk. 4.18. Isai. 61.1. The spirit of the Lord is upon me, &c. These words, and what follow, Luke delivers to us according to the Septuagint, though it be most manifest Christ read them in the Ebrew; now that version, for what we read out of Ebrew [and the opening of the prison to them that are bound] hath, [...], and re­covering of sight to the blind: to which Luke adds (as if it follow­ed) out of Chap. 58.6. [...], to let the op­pressed, or broken, go free. But you will say Luke was no Jew; and [Page 45] therefore could not well interpret out of a language he under­stood not. And we dare not peremptorily determine that every one that had the Spirit, had likewise the gift of languages. For Paul then, who was one, he in the Epistle to the Galatians proving, against the Jewes, that were the Children of the Free-woman, and not of the Bond-woman, Gal. 4.27. cites a place out of the same Prophet, after his usuall manner, according to the Seventies Gr. edition; as Hierom hath observed it. Nay,Phil. 3.5. being an Ebrew of the Ebrews, and writing to his own country-men (for he is verily thought theBaron. ad An. LX. § 42. 43. &c. vide Lamp. Alard. Epiphyl. lib. 1. Autor) he doth exactly (whether he writ it in the Ebrew, or no,) followHieron. [...]n Isai. cap. 6. the sence and words of the very same Translation; except any one can surmise, that his scribe, or Interpreter (be it whether it will be) durst be so bold, as to de­liver that again according to the LXX. which himself had first conceived, and dictated, after the Ebrew verity. Sequutus est au­thor hujus epistolae LXX. Interpretum editionem, saith the all-knowing Joseph Scaliger; The Author not Translator: and there are other reasons would make a man conjecture that it was ori­ginally Greek. Though not in this perhaps, yet in many other things of this kind antiquity hath fouly imposed upon our be­lief. However, certain it is, that two of Paul's own country­men, and the learnedest of the Nation after him, the one Philo, esteemed by antiquity the Plato of the Jewes; the other Josephus, a Pharisee by his own report; whom though I will not com­pare with Paul for exactness of observance in his sect, (which himself sticks not to make boast of, even after his conversion,Act. 22.3.26.5.) yet undoubtedly was he most exact, as well in the Language, as lawes of his own people: Notwithstanding that, both these are observed to make use of this version of the 70. Elders, rather then themselves to interpret out of their own Books, and Language, (which they were most absolutely able to do, it being native to them; and their Gr. onely acquired by study,) as often as occa­sion offered it self.Praefat. ad [...]. & contra Appi­on. lib 1. And indeed it is to be wondred at in Jose­phus, that he should so do; especially in a matter of that moment, as the computation of the yeares from the Creation, in which he makes choice to follow the Seventies account, which indeed as far disagrees with the Ebrew Videsis Mich. Glycam An­nal. part 2., as the Samaritan comes not neer either of them. And whether Nennius, the old Britain, [Page 46] follow him,Hist. Brito­num. cap. 1. in his Translation by Ruffinus, in reckoning the same yeares, or else the old Latin Translation out of the Seventy, is a question needs not heer much to trouble us. Now all this is said, not with any intent to prefer the broken cisterns of Translations, before the fountain of living waters contained in the Originall Ebrew: but to shew in what esteem, and how gene­rally received the Seventies Edition was in the Apostles age, and those next following: and we must needs say with Jerom; Ep. ad Da­mas. in 4. E­vang. Illa vera interpretatio, quam Apostoli probaverunt. v. ejus praef. in J [...]rem. that that is a true Translation which the Apostles approved of: Onely it were to be wished, we had it now in that purity, Si 70. Interp. pura, & ut ab eis in Gr. versa est editio perma­neret, super flue, mi Chromati, impelleres, ut Ebraea tibi v [...] ­lum. Lat. ser­mone transfer­rem. Hieron. prolog. in Pa­ralip. ac­cording as the Primitive Church enjoyed it: Of the restoring of which, in some good sort, M^r Yong (a man born for publique good, and advancement of better literature,) hath given the Christian learned world, not onely good hopes, but also some assurance. In the mean while, having it no better then we have, who can patiently bear with that too magisterious censureRich. Monta­cut. Ep. Nor­wic. Orig. Ec­clesiast. tom. 1. part. poster. § 54. p. 36., of one, who otherwise indeed had learning enough for two honest Bishops: Magnam habere [...], saith he, debet interpretatio 70. & in iis quae ad Christi condescensionem ( [...], & in carne susceptâ [...]) spectant, majorem apud me habebit, quàm He­braica, quam tantopere quidam ampullantur, veritas, ut appellant. And yet he had told us not long before, that it was but a miscel­lany version, non pura puta 70. ex Aquilae, Symmachi, aliorum ver­sionibus constata. He was a manJ. S. de DIs Syr. Synt. 2. cap. 16. Graecè sanè & Latinè doctus; and of the two Languages, which it pleased the Holy Ghost to make use of, becoming an exquisite Master in the one, contempsit alteram. As for this very Text,De Gestis Aelfredi R. Asserius Menevensis (he was B^P of Sherborn about the year DCCCLXXX.) hath the reading of it after the Gr. of the 70. out of the same Latine version thereof before mentioned, and generally in use of old time in these Kingdomes, before the vulgar Latin came either to be admitted, or enforced: Si rectè offeras, rectè autem non dividas, peccas. And what follows heer in the next words; And Caïn said unto Abel his brother, Let us go along into the field, [...], according to the same LXX. although it be wanting in the Ebrew, yet it is to be found in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Of which alsoQuaest. Ebr. in Genesim. Jerom took notice: Superfluum ergo est, saith he, quod in Samaritanorum & nostro volumine reperitur, Transeamus in [Page 47] Campum. See incomparable M^r Selden praefat. ad Marmora Arun­delliana.

Aäron and Miriam had their habitation out of the Camp.]IX. We must heer read Clement warily, and favourably. Aäron is not said in the Text to be shut forth; but Miriam onely. Neither was their murmuring against Moses the immediate cause thereof; for then had Aäron also been put out: But Miriam's leprosie,Levit. 13.46. (according to the Law;) it being the particular and single punishment inflicted upon her by God, and that for particular reasons not heer to be discussed, for her speaking against Moses. See Deut. XXIV. 9. But Clement may be excused by great examples. Paul tells us in his I to the Corinth. that Christ,1 Cor. 15.5. after he rose again, was seen of Cephas, [...], then of the twelve. A perfect number for an imperfect. For indeed there were not at most above eight, if so many: Judas having hanged himself; Peter, with the beloved Disciple, being absent; as appeares by passages in John, and Luke; Neither indeed was Thomas there.Joh. 20.10. Luk. 24.34. Joh. 20.24. And from Paul's following words we may gather James was away too. Now these words are meant of his first appearance to his Disciples. So that they, (and some of them are of the antients,) do nothing, who have mended the place, [ [...], eleven,] when as neither so the account will stand good. Many such instances may be brought also out of the most antient and best Heathen writers; but this is not a fit place for them. This shall be enough.

He passed unto the due appointed place of Glory.] X. Gr. [...]. Polycarpus in his Epistle to the Philippians makes use of this expression, (which he borrowes from Clement) concerning Paul and other holy men; onely the Verb [...] is from this place to be restored thitherPatr. Junius Not. Critic. in Polycar. Ep. Oxon. edit. à Dn. Usserio. 1644.: [...], &c. And the whole passage of that part thereof is transcribed by Eusebius. But in this mentioning of Peter heer, there is nothing of his Prerogative and Primacy;Eccles. hist. lib. 3. [...]. nothing of his universall Episcopacy, and unlimited Jurisdicti­on bequeathed to his Successors; no not any thing of his own being Bishop of Rome; or appointing Clement after him to suc­ceed in a single prelaticall power above the other Presbyters. Not a word of all this in him, from whom, had there been ever [Page 48] any such thing, we might best expect it. Nay his very being at Rome, whether ever at all, or no, is questioned, I and denied too, by men of unquestionable learning,Tract. super eâ re apud Melch. Goldast. Tom. 3. Mo­narch. Rom. Imperii. Ʋlricus Velenus, Math. Fl. Illyricus, Dav. Pareus, Jos. Scaliger, Sibrandus, Salmasius, and di­vers others. And indeed that he never saw Rome, for about some XX. years next after the Ascension of Christ, may be de­monstrated by very evident places of Holy Scripture: where notwithstanding they will have him to be crucified about some XXXVII. years after that time; having sate Bishop there above XXV. of them, and VII. more before that at Antioch. This, I say, if we prove, that Peter was so far from being at Rome for the first XX. years, (and we will see what may be done afterward for the other XVII.) that indeed he was at Hierusalem, or in places a great deal more remote then it, in the East for all that while, we shall wondrously trouble their account, and indeed shake the whole foundation and fabrique of their ill-contrived Roman Ecclesiasticall Monarchy, which they pretend to derive, (but up­on most uncertain proofs,) from Peter's residence, and juris­diction, there. [...]. And thus we doe it.

For the I. year after the Ascension, Peter preached daily at Hierusalem, either in the Temple, or in private houses, notwith­standing his former imprisonment, and the Order of the Coun­cel to the contrary. Act. 5.42. After the Martyrdom of Stephan, which happened in the II. Baron. ad An. XXIV. § 301. year after the Ascension, he was sent with John to them of Samaria, whence he returned to Hieru­salem, Act. 8.14.25. The IV. or perhaps the V. year, and the third after his own conversion, S^t Paul sees him at Hierusalem, and staies with him 15. daies. Gal. 1.18. The sixt year after he cures Aeneas of the palsey at Lydda, and from thence goes to Joppa, where he tarried many dayes. Act. 9.34.43. The VII. year he baptizes Cornelius the Centurion at Cesarea. Act. 10.48. where he tarried certain dayes; and returning to Hierusalem, he is found fault with for going out to men uncircumcised, that is, the Gentiles. Act. 11.3. And upon this check received, it appeares by Gal. 2.8. that he meddled not any more with the Gentiles, but effectually laboring in his Ministry to the Circumcision, as is most likely, he staid thereabout till the XI. year, in which he was impriso­ned by Herod, and miraculously freed, Act. 12.4. And this is the [Page 49] time say some he went to Rome. But they say it onely. Besides, how can this agree with his sitting at Antioch VII. years before his coming to Rome, which they tell us of? Now he hath not been at Antioch yet, nor will not be till anon. And we find him again at Hierusalem. For the XIV^th year after S. Paul had seen him at Hierusalem, (before mentioned,) which makes thev. Hieron. in II. ad Gal. XVIII^th after Christ's Ascension, and in the IX. year of Clau­dius he meets with him again in the same place, and leaves him to the Circumcision, himself and Barnabas departing to the Gentiles, according to an agreement made among them. Gal. 2.9. Which agreement being put into their hearts, without all doubt, immediately by the Holy Spirit, as being President of their Councel, we cannot piously, or with Charity, imagine, that Peter would break the Order thereof, or so much as a compact agreed upon among themselves; especially if we consider how wary he must needs be in dealing with the Gentiles, by reason of the fear he stood in of them, who were of the Circumcision, Gal. 2.12. and to the ministry of whom he was deputed by the Spirit, not onely at this Assembly; but formerly also: for his was [...], The Apostleship of the Circumcision, Gal. 2.8. Well; after this Councel, held, as is said, about eighteen years after Christ's Ascension, Paul meets him yet again, (it is not very likely it should be presently after,) and that at Antioch, far enough out of the way from Hierusalem to Rome, where he withstands him to his face, and frights him frō meddling any more with the Gentiles, as being wholly contrary to their compact and agreement. Gal. 2.11. From hence he withdraws and separates himself. Gal. 2.12. But whither goes he? To the Jewes, or Christians, in Rome? At this time there were none to be found there. Orosius Oros. lib. 7. c. 6. out of Josephus: Claudii anno nono expulsos Ʋrbe Judaeos, refert Josephus. Suetonius:In Claudio, cap. 25. Judaeos impulsore Christ. So cal­led by the Heathen. Chresto assiduè tumultuantes Româ expulit. Claudius had ba­nished thence all the Jews, before Peter could get thither; that is the Christians aswel:Adi Arrian. in [...]. lib. 2. cap. 9. parùm heic in­tellectum ab Interprete. 1 Pet. 1.1. for as yet they were not so quite dis­criminated by the Romans; so that Orosius needed not so much to have troubled himself about this place of Suetonius. Most cer­tainly he went then to the strangers scattered in Asia. &c. [...]. whose Metropolis was Babylon, and [Page 50] from whence he wrote his First Epistle. 1 Pet. 5.13. The Church which is at Babylon elected together with you saluteth you. That Babylon heer is meant of Rome, it is not Eusebius out of fancifull Papias, or Jerom out of him, that can perswade us without bet­ter reasons.Ad An. XLV. § 17. Nec me imprudenter dicturum ex­istimo. &c. For the conceit indeed of Baronius, that Peter should give a false name to the place, because he would not be found out where he was, truly it is not altogether irridiculous; though himself thinks he speaks somewhat prudently therein. We know the difference between Epistolicall, and Propheticall, ex­pressions; and confess we deserve to be laugh'd at, if we should beleeve him, that it was usuall with the Apostles, to change mens names, aswell as the names of places, for particular ends and advantages; as we have seen the Jesuites do with us, the Cardinals very friends, and greatest Champions for Peters Pri­macy at Rome. By this time it appeares to every ingenuous un­derstanding, that will not suffer it self [...], to be led by the nose by whatever authority it is, which can but plead an­tiquity, that Peter for some XX. years after Christs Ascension never so much as saw Rome. [...] quod erat demonstran­dum.

Let us now speak to the other XVII. years.

We have seen, that during the Reign of Tiberius, Caligula, and even unto the end of Claudius, Peter hath never been at Rome. Nero is next. Let us hear what the greatJos. Scalig. ad Joan XVIII. com. 31. Amender of times will say: A Christi in coelum receptu ad IV. annum Neronis certo certius est Petrum Romam non venisse. You hear how perempto­ry he is. He tells us certainty it self is not more certain, then that Peter never came to Rome before the IIII. year of Nero. Whe­ther he did after that, or no, remaines to be examined. About the end of Claudius, or at least the beginning of Nero, as is gene­rally beleeved, some two or three years before his own coming thither, Paul writes his Epistle to the Romans, though Pareus would have it later. In the last Chapter thereof he salutes, be­sides others, by name neer upon thirtyRom. 16.2. Saints, men and wo­men, of that Church. Now res ipsa clamat, saith Calvin, Institut. cap. 8. § 101. non debuisse Petrum praeteriri si Romae fuisset. Not Christian charity, but common ingenuity may wonder, that Peter should be omit­ted, had he been at Rome. Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? So [Page 51] fervent sure was S. Paul's love to all the Saints, that he could by no meanes neglect, much less hate, him whom he had once thought worthy of his chiding, and reproof, at Antioch. Or had he left Rome by reason or the Edict of Claudius, as Baronius Ad An. LVIII. § 51. pretends, but having no Testimony in the world for it, (and yet this is all the reasons he allegeth for Paul's not naming him, though he makes shew of more,) so great a light of the Church being missing from his own Orb, might have seemed worthy of S. Paul's enquiring after; especially writing to the place where he is conceived to have had such power and preëmi­nence. But some few yeares after Paul himself comes to Rome. There was store then of Jews, and Christians, in the City. Doth he then finde Peter returned? No such matter set down by him that tells us the story; and it is not probable that Peter's name at least, in case he were come back to Rome, should have wanted setting down by him, that was otherwise very studious of his actions; and who tels us that many others resorted unto Paul, while he dwelt in his own hired house, Act. 28.30. for the space of two whole years together. None, no not any the least mention neither of his being at Rome, is to be found in those many Epistles written there by Paul, to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, Philemon, after his long continuance in that place. He acquaints theGal. 1.18.2.11. Galatians with his seeing him at Hierusalem and Antioch: and could no accident happen at Rome, that might minister him occasion to mention his seeing him there, (if per­chance he did so) in his Letters to none of the Churches? He gives testimony to the Philippians concerning this Clement, then with him in Rome when he wrote hisPhil. 4.3. Epistle to them; and would he say nothing of Peter, by whom they will needs have Clement constituted to be his successour in the Bishoprick of Rome? He tels the same Philippians, he had none with him so equally affected like himself as was Timothy for their good, all others seeking their own, not the things which are Jesus Christs. Can this aspersion light upon Peter? Can Timothy, but a son of Paul's nurtering, and a meer novice in comparison of Peter, have a greater care of the people of Christ, then he that forsooth must be Universall Bishop of all the Churches? S. Paul tels the same Timothy, that at his first answer at Rome none stood with him, 2 Tim. 4.16. [Page 52] but all men forsook him. High shame for Peter, if so be he were then at Rome! Nay, in the same Epistle (which they tell us was written in the lastHenr. Bunting. Chron. Eccles. &c. 2 Tim. 4.6.7.8.10.12.11. year of Nero, and is that of both their Martyrdoms,) S. Paul signifying unto him, with a prophetique spirit no doubt, his departure being at hand, the finishing of his cours, and the obtaining of a Crown; he acquaints him withall what way Demas, and Crescens, and Titus, and Tychicus had ta­ken: And out of a consideration of his own solitude, he lets him know moreover that of all the Ministers of the Gospel Luke onely was with him. And was not Peter's errand whither­soever worthy the giving Timothy notice of? Or if they, whom he names, were all, who had departed from him, what becomes of Peter then, when Luke alone is found remaining? Where now shall we find Peter in the time of Nero? or where hath he bestowed himself?Menander in Hypobolimaeo. [...]. I like not these stragling gods, said the Comedian of old. A Bishop never resident; never at home in his own Diocess; but alwayes [...],1 Pet. 4.15. quite contrary to his own rule and precept? An il president sure, and example, to the Bishops of after ages; and too much (the whole world is witness) imitated, and obser­ved. But though we cannot find him alive, and exercising his Jurisdiction, in this great City, the publique [...]. Mar­cian. Hera­cleot. Junior. [...]. Star of the whole Earth, shall we find him dead there? Neither doth that suffici­ently appeare. Certainly a most strange fate, that the manner of his suffring (Joh. 21.18.) should have clearer testimony given of it, then the place where! The understanding Reader by this time cannot be ignorant, why we have so vehement a suspicion of the truth of that common relation concerning Peter and his martyrdome at Rome. What is to be done then? To forsake slight, and, as is manifest, forged authorities, and in stead of them to fly to conjectures, will afford us but small help for the finding out of the truth. And yet me thinks Peter's writing of his Epistle from Babylon seems to me to confirme that most pro­bable one of Scaliger, Scal. d. l. who thinks he rather suffred under some Provinciall Magistrate [...] Asiae, where he preached to the Jewes scattered far and wide in Pontus, 1 Pet. 1.1. Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. However his argument out of Tacitus is not good to prove that he was not crucified at Rome under [Page 53] Nero, because, saies he, in that onely Persecution under him, the Christians were burnt in publique, wrapt up in sear-cloth with pitch and other combustible stuff, being tyed upright by the necks to a stake, and all this to give light to his night pastimes and sports; when as Tacitus indeed as well confesseth that some were crucified, and also wurried to death in beasts skins by dogs.Tacit. Annal. lib. XV. Pereuntibus, saith he, addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus affixi; aut flammandi, at (que) ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. To say no more; the resolution of Calvin, speaking of this same business, is very grave, and moderate:Instit. c. VIII. § 102. Res illius temporis ita sunt opinionum varietate implicitae, ut non temere adhibenda sit fides, ubi aliquid scriptum legimus. Et tamen propter hunc scripto­rum consensum, non pugno quin illic mortuus fuerit: sed Episcopum fuisse, praesertim longo tempore, persuaderi nequeo. And the truth is, that the Christians of the more antient Ages, perceiving a great flaw or defect in the History of Church affaires from the end of the Acts of the Apostles to Trajan's time, took upon them, per­haps with no bad intent, to make up, with supplement of their own pure invention, that Chasm, or breach in the Story: Herein, as none of the worst parcels, I mean, (as it hapned out,) not of the least advantage to after times, was Peter's coming to Rome, his Episcopacy there, with his Martyrdome, and Successors. They had read perhaps ind. l. Tacitus or Suetonius of the persecution of Christians under Nero, which was indeed the first,In Ner. c. 16. Id. in Claud. c. 25. Claudius onely banishing them the City as is aforesaid: Hence they strait made a conjecture that Peter, and Paul, might then suffer; though truly they kept no exact observation of the time.

But that this indeed could not be so, if it hath not already been sufficiently proved, let us hear what Eutychius the Patriarch of the Orthodox Christians at Alexandria telleth us, a writer, who for his Age and Authority may very well be heard, and in whose late publishedArabicè edit. à Clariss. Sel­deno. Antiquities of his own Church you may read; Occisus est Petrus sub annum XXII. post Dominum nostrum Christum, which falling in with the beginning of Nero, how could Peter suffer in the Persecution begun by Nero so long after, as he is said in the common account? Notwithstanding, he re­taines the commonly received tradition of Peter's being at Rome, [Page 54] and that there forsooth he writ Evangelium Marci, cum Marco, lingua i. Graecâ, ita Arabib. dicta. v. Selden. Romana. Yet he acknowledgeth him not to have been ever Bishop of Rome; but saies plainly that Linus erat primus Patriarcha Romanus.

That Paul also suffred under some Provinciall Magistrate, and not at Rome by the command of Nero, I could suffer my self easily to be brought to beleeve, by reason of these words of Clement [...], under the Governours, whether Presidiall, or Proconsular, I know no more, then I am determined to strive against the violent current of all antiquity. For I know how impatiently the ulcers of inveterate errors suffer themselvs to be handled, and searched into.

XI. And made his way to the utmost bounds of the West.] Doth he heer mean his going into Spain, his resolution for which jour­ney himself hath set down in the Epistle to the Romans in these words? Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: Rō. XV. 24.28. for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you and a little after. When therefore I have perfor­med this and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain. Which whether he ever performed hath hitherto been disputed: This place of Clement seems much to confirm that he did. Some very learned Papists would utterly deny it, asEp. ad De­centiū dist. 11. cap. Quis nesciat. In­nocent III. P.In Rom. c. 15. (ex Gelasio apud Grat. dist. 22. q. 2. cap. Beatus.) Thomas Aquinas, In Rom. c. 15. ad l. Dominicus Soto, &c. But Ba­ronius Ad An. LXI. § 2.3. &c. inclines to beleeve it; in whom you may finde the te­stimonies for it collected out of the Gr. and Lat. Fathers, among whom Theodoret tells us, (though this place be omitted by the Cardinal)In Ep. ad Rom. cap. 15. ad l. spiritu prophetico eam profectionem praedictam, & idcirco necessariò implendam fuisse. Nay, he goes farther, and saies;In Psal. 116. In Hispanias pervenit, & insulis quae in mari jacent utilitatem attulit; in which place by his [Insulae in mari] he understands undoub­tedly the Britannies; as he seems to interpret himselfDe Car. Graec. affect. lib. IX. elswhere, telling us that among others, [...], he meanes Paul, did perswade [...], the Britains and Gauls, as well as other Nations, to receive the Laws of Christ crucified. And for farther witness, the very same is affirmed by Sophronius Serm. de Natal. Apost., the Patriarch of Hierusalem, (not he whose spurious, and counter­feit book we have inscrib'd Fragment. Peregrin. Petri & Pauli,) and by Venantius De vitâ Mar­tini. lib. 3. Fortunatus, a very antient Christian Poët, whose is this:

But you will say his testimony is in verse; I say little to that: But dare be confident that that is but Poëtry, or making, which theRob. Person. de 3^b. Con­vers. Angliae part. 1. cap. § 21. Rich. Vi­tus Basi [...]s [...]ch. hist. Brit. lib 4. Jo. P [...]th [...]us Re­lat. de reb. An­glicis. Praefat. de Antiq. Ec­cles. Brytan­nicae. &c. Papists, our countrymen, would delude us with about Peter's being heer, his constituting Churches, and ordaining Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons among us; (for they would have little good done any where but by him;) and all this upon very un­sound, or to speake better, upon false and forged authorities. For as forL [...]b. 2. ca. 40. Nicephorus Callistus, their best Author, neither he, Niceph. Gregoras or any other of the name, are of any antiquity almost to speak of beyond yesterday; therefore not to be credited in a business of this kind: and Baronius himself confesseth, that this is deliveredAd An. XLIV. § 38. abs (que) aliquo antiquorum testimonio. For Doro­theus In Synopsi., the writing, which beares his name,Salm. de Ep. & Presbyt. Rivet. Crit. Sacri lib 3. ca. 13. Rob. Cocus Cen­sur. p. 115. is most certainly supposititious. And their third man is the very Jacobus de Vora­gine, or if I could say worse, of the Greek Church: I meanSym. Me­taph. ad diem XXIX. Junii. Symeon Metaphrastes, who whereas he cites Eusebius for what he saies, I am afraid he doth but put a false die upon us. No such thing appears in his History of the Church, where it should be found, as in its most convenient place: if it were in some part of him, which is not come to our hands, we can say nothing to that, but, Quod perîsse videmus, perditum ducimus. These are all. Yet we could help them to a fourth man, my Lord of Arundel's Gr. Anon. MS.Apud Dn. Junium in Not. ad Cle­ment. of the Travels of Peter and Paul: I might have thought him the forged Sophronius before mentioned, but that I see him to be but a gleaner at best out of Symeon the Translater: and in this business of Peter's being in Britain he is transcribed by him verbatim. Let who so will see for better satisfaction Fran. Goodwin, de Convers. Britan. cap. 1. p. 7. D. Ʋsser. de Britan. Ecclesiar. Primordiis, cap. 1. p. 8. Jerom Catal. Scri­ptor. Eccl. in PAULO. (who translated this Epistle into Latin above CC. years ago) seems to have had this place of Clement in his mind, when he wrote these words of Paul: Evangelium Christi in Occidentis quo (que) partibus praedicavit; which, saies he, he did after his first dismission obtained at Rome from Nero; whereof himself makes mention II Tim. IV. 16.

Repent ye house of Israel, &c.] See M^r Yong's Notes ad pag. 11.XII. edit. Graecolat. and what is observed heer Num. VII. and IIX. of [Page 56] the joyning of many places of Scripture into one sense, or period; and of the differing readings from our ordinary Bibles.

XIII. Let us fasten our contemplation, &c.] This passage, and those that follow, are transcribed hence by Clemens Alexandrinus in his 4. Stromat.

XIV. Preached the instauration of all things to the World.] He meanes the restitution of what perished in the Flood, by the encrease of those creatures, which in the following words he tels us God saved in the Ark. Gr. [...]. The word is used in Matthew for the second coming of Christ in his Kingdome and power to judge the world,Matth. 19.28. Apoc. 21.5. when he shall make all things new. For Matthew's language [...], is expressed [...] by Luke, Luk. 22.30. speaking of the same promise of Christ to his Disciples, that they should then sit upon XII. Thrones judg­ing the XII. Tribes of Israel. But later Christian Writers of the Gr. Church take it, some for the generall Resurrection at the last day; others for Regeneration, or the New birth which is by Baptism. It is needless to heap hither their autorities.

XV. Pillar of salt, remaining even unto this day.] Gr. [...]. Josephus witnesseth as much, who moreover tels us, that he saw it [...]. lib. 1. cap. 12. But Lot's wife, as they retired thence, looking back towards the City, and more curiously beholding the destruction thereof, contrary to the Commandment of God, was transformed into a pillar of salt, which I have seen; for it remaineth even untill this day. Now Clement and Josephus were Synchroni. Tertullian witnesseth it was to be seen in his time; that is, not an hundred and fifty years after them. Which we may the less wonder at, when as besides Burchardus, and divers others, our late English Travellers into those parts affirme that it is still undissolv'd, and standing. Sulpicius Severus 300. years after Clement, calls this Pillar onely molem Hist. sacr. l. 1., omitting to set down both the form, and substance or matter it consisted of. But his, not omissions onely, but manifest departing from the exact ve­rity of the Holy Text, may frequently be observed. Other­wise he tels the story hansomly, and like himself: Sed mulier parùm dicto audiens, (humano malo quo agriùs vetitis abstinetur,) reflexit oculos, statim (que) in molem conversa traditur.

Be ye mercifull, that ye may obtain mercy.] CLEMENT'S Gr.XVI. [...]. Luke's Gr. [...]. But see once for all N. VII.

Although he could do all things.] Gr. [...]. Hierom, XVII. as is before observed, turn'd this Epistle into Latin, which we may fear is now quite lost. His copy seems to have had [...], missing heer; reading it thus: [...]. For so ac­cordingly he translates this period, yet to be found in his wri­tings upon the LII. Chapter of the Prophet Esay. Sceptrum Dei Dominus Jesus Christus, non venit in jactantiâ superbiae, cum possit omnia, sed in humilitate. I have followed him. It is far the more cleare reading; yet Jerom doth not render [...] after [...], Christ the scepter of the majesty of God: I know not whe­ther it were wanting in his book.

Because he hath a mind to him.] Or, Because he delighteth in him. XVIII. Gr. [...]. With this very pas­sage, taken out of Psal. XXII. the Chief Priests and Elders mock't Christ upon the Cross. Matth. XXVII. 43. where also it would be better rendred, if he take delight in him, [ [...],] then as it is in our Bibles, (seeming rather transcribed from our English Reading Psalms, as they call them, out of the Vulgar Latin, [quoniam vult eum,] then translated out of the Gr.) if he will have him. The same Interpreter in this place of Matthew seems to have read, or at least, to have understood the Gr. thus: [...]. for he translates it: liberet nunc eum, si vult. omitting the former [...], and then mispointing the words. And so quite alters the meaning. The Ebrew word signifieth indeed the same that [...] doth, as well as [...], which occasioned the LXX. to turn this place, [...], for [...]. And it is formerly observed, how generally they were followed. Otherwise Matthew, expressing the very same thing and sence elswhere in his own words, useth the verb [...].Matth. 3.17. in whom I am well pleased, or, delighted. And though the Vulgar heer in this Psal. agree with the 70. yet in other places he leaves them, and comes neerer the signification of this later verb in rendring the Originall word. For whereas they have [...].1 Sam. 18.22. 2 Sam. 15.26. and [...]. that Interpreter hath places Regi, and non places. [Page 58] But it may be gathered from the preface to this version of the Psalms, that the [...], or former edition, was translated but out of the 70. onely heer and there amended by comparing it with the Ebrew Text afterward.

XIX. I am as the reaking of a pot.] The learned Publisher of this Epistle, finding this place no where in the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, under whose name notwithstanding it is heer cited, refers us to a very antient Gr.Josephus, sive Josippus, Scri­ptor Christia­nus, in [...]. v. James in Eclog. Bibl. Publ. Canta­brig. n. 243. & Cl. Selden. de Anno Civili Judaeor. cap. 8. p. 43. Author, not yet set forth; (whom, with manyAlios (que) eximi­os Graecos non­dum editos; quos parum vexari ab iis puto qui in illis Collegiis de­gunt: A me cer­tè non rarò re­viserentur, si ibi adessem. Jos. Scalig. Ep. 234. ad Ri. Thomps. de Biblioth. An­gliae. others, that have not seen the publique since the admired benefit of Printing, he, with some few better souls, suffers not to sleep, and gather dust, in our Libraries, or rather Bibliotaphs, either through egregious laziness, or want of conve­nience, and encouragement, I know not whether: but I am sure to our no small shame; they beyond the seas taking notice of it, and envying us such treasuries as we make no use of:) This Author in oneQuaest. seu cap. 120. part of his work hath collected together those places in the New Testament, which seem to be taken or quoted out of the Old, but appear not any where extant in those books thereof, which it hath pleased God to continue to his Church. As for these words heer, Clement seems to have them out of the 119. Psal. v. 83. naming Moses for David, perhaps with the same liberty, that he sees Christ use Joh. X. 34. where he urging a place out of the Psalmes calls them the Law, in these words: Is it not written in your Law, Psal. 82.6. I said, Ye are Gods? And the people seeme to imitate him to his face doing the same in the Ch. next save one following, Joh. XII. 34. The people answered him; We have heard out of the Law, That Christ abideth ever. Which words it is apparent are taken out of Psal. CX. 4. See also Joh. XV. 25. and Psal. 35.19. So Paul likewise terms the Prophecy of Esay the Law too: 1 Cor. XIV. 21. In the Law it is written: now the place he intends is Esay 28.11. It is worth looking upon the learned Heinsius his Sacred Meditat. on this place of Pauls. And from this unquestionable example and authority it is, that the Fathers many times by this word, [...], The Law, do understand the whole Old Testament. And yet Christ seems plainly to divide it into the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, as appeares by many places, but especially Luke XXIV. 44. All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in [Page 59] the Psalms, concerning me. The Apostles, and Fathers most an end, followed also this distinction. And the Jews divided it not much otherwise, as we may find in Jerom; After the Law, saith he, secundum Prophetarum ordinem faciunt. In prol. Ga­leato. Tertius ordo [...] possidet: Et primus liber incipit ab Job: secundus autem David, quem &c.

That unpassable Ocean.]XX. The learned Editioner by these words understands the British Ocean. Sure very rightly. For the very same, or like, expressions did the writers not onely about this age, but in the following also, use concerning it. To confirm this more then probable conjecture, take the paines to read these verses,Jos. Scaliger primus edidit in Catalect. &c. pen'd most certainly about Clement's time; and they are of Claudius th' Emperours Expedition into the Iland:

For two reasons Antiquity conceited this Sea most dangerous, and unpassable. First, for the great abundance of huge Sea-monsters beleeved to be bred therein; which not onelyLib. 4. od. 14. Horace intimates in these words:

But Juvenal also in his X. Satyr, ‘Quantò Delphinis Balaena Britannica major.’ Festus Avienus In Oris Ma­ritimis., who lived under Theodosius, and is mentioned with good credit by S. Hierom, borrows the former expression, speaking likewise of the Ocëan Sea;

And I may wel think both places were in his mind,Jac. Syncer. Sannazar. Ecl. Piscator. V. who wrote that gallant verse, (and such are all his,) ‘Sensit Arar, sensere maris fera monstra Britanni.’ [Page 60] A singular ornament indeed he was to the last Age, and antient poëtry it self;— Hic ille Maroni Synce [...]us, Mu­sâ proximus, ut tumulo. Petr. Bembus Car­dinal. who as he enjoyed, not onely the Dwelling, but the Muse also, of the Prince of Poëts while he liv'd, so had he the happiness after he was dead to lye neerest to his Relics. The second reason was, not onely unexpected Tempests and storms suddenly arising thereon, but the unusuall violence also of the Tides, which if we hear Pytheas of Marseils in Plinie Natur. Hist. lib 2. ca. 97., (for Strabo Geogr. li. 1. [...]. hath utterly exploded his credit in what he relates of the Britannies) make it swell fourscore cubits higher then the land. Mare, attolli horrendis aestibus adsuetum. saithHistor. lib. 27. Amm. Marcelli­nus speaking of it. Caesar Com. de bel. Gallico, lib. 5. himself had dear experience of the roughness of it, when he neer lost his whole navy upon our coast.Com. de bel. Gallico, lib. 5. Maximâ coörta tempestate, propè omnes naves afflictae, at (que) in littus ejectae, quòd ne (que) anchorae, funes (que) subsisterent, ne (que) nautae, gu­bernatores (que) vim tempestatis pati possent. and he found to his charges, to use his own words a little further,Ibid. lib. 4. Longè aliam esse navigationem in concluso mari, at (que) in vastissimo ac apertissimo Ocëano. And yet certainly the danger which he conceived, and fear'd might happen, either in or after his passage, made him very wary, and provident in making choice of a fit season for it; which indeed [...]. lib. 5. Appian tels us he did. Neither did time, or im­provement of skill in Navigation, lessen this fearfull apprehen­sion with after ages concerning the certain perill and hazard which they underwent, that sail'd this Sea. Basil the Great calls itHomil. 4. in Hexaëmeron. [...], which S. Ambrose renders,Lib. Hexam. cap. 3. magnum & inausum navigantibus, at (que) intentatum naut is mare, quod BritanniasOcëanus barbaris flucti­bus fremens. Paulin. de eodem. vide Geograph. Nubiensem. frementi includit aequore, at (que) in ulterior a & ipsis fabulis inaccessa secreta se porrigit. Libanius also the famous So­phist, and Master unto Julian called by some th' Apostate, living in the same Age with S. Basil, and describing with what jeopar­dy Constantius th' Emperour cross'd this Sea into Britain, he calls it [...] [...] Panegyr. Con­stantio., (the very word that Clement useth heer,) unpassable; esteeming more danger to be in this passage, then in a Sea-fight elswhere; and the performance thereof with safety to deserve no less then a Tropee. Plus est transisse ad Britannos, saith Hegesippus De Excid. Hierosolym., (not he whom Eusebius formerly cites,) quàm triumphasse de Britannis. And well might he think so, when as that stupid Caligula, affecting some great design against Britain, with an [Page 61] army, as appeares out of Dio, of 250000. fighting men, being come to the shore, durst hardly look the British Neptune in the face, much less trust him. Yet that he might not be said to come so far to no purpose, himself, with some few more,Dio, & Aur. Victor. ex edit. A. Schotti. lanches out in his Gally, but fear makes him instantly put in again. How­ever to make something of it, upon the sounding of a charge, he commands his army, which stood in Battalia all the while upon the shore, to gather shel-fish, (for it was upon an Ebb,) and there­with to fill galeas & sinus, Sueton. in Caligula, ca. 46. Spolia Ocëani vocans, Capitolio, Pa­latioque debita: calling them Spoiles of the Ocean due to the Capitol and Palace. The Bravado of Claudius, next after him, was not much more tolerable: For counting it not enough to triumph for reducing a small part of the Iland, (which indeed he entred with some success; but I remember not whether with any dan­ger in the passage,) after his return, he caus'd to be placed upon the top of his Palace a Naval Crown, as if he had tamed and subjugated the Ocean, like another Xerxes, in despight of the power of God appearing in that fierce Element; for which he is deservedly scoff'd at by Seneca, In [...]. in that mock-Deification, which he wrote for him, in these words,—& ipsum

But what shall we say to Jul. Firmicus, a Christian Writer, (shame on such flattery,) who would seeme to perswade Constans the Emperour, and Constantius his Brother, that they might expect little less then a Triumph, onely for their bare ventring over into the Iland: Hyeme Lib. De Erro­re profanar. Re­ligionum, sub fin., he tells them, (quod nec factum est aliquando, nec fiet,) tumentes & saevientes undas calcâstis Ocëani Britannici, sub remis vestris incogniti jam nobis penè maris unda contremuit, & insperatam Imperatoris faciem Britannus expavit. Quid ampliùs vultis? Virtutibus vestris victa Elementa cesserunt. Thus much of the British Sea. And because M^r Yong thinks the Irish may as well be heer meant by Clement, you shall have what Solinus sayes of that sea too, and there also the word [...] not unfitly exprest.Polyistor. ca. 35. vulg. 22. Salmas. Mare quod Iberniam & Britan­niam interluit, undosum, & inquietum, toto in anno non ni­si [Page 62] [Deest Salma­sio. aestivis] pauculis diebus est navigabile. Clement's [...] is non navigabile.

That unpassable Ocëan, and those Worlds which are beyond it.] This pericope, or passage, is much taken notice of by the Antients; Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hierom, and Photius, who reckons it among those things in this Epistle which might be quarrell'd at:Phot. Patriar. CP. Biblioth. num. 126. [...]. One would find fault with him, saies he, for making a supposi­tion of worlds to have their being without the Ocëan. Comm. in 2. cap. ad Ephes. Hierom doth but play with it, and makes use of it onely to shew his wit in descanting upon this Text, Eph. 2.2. Ye walked according to the course of this world. But Origen [...]. lib. 2. is more learned. He forsooth interpreting 2 Pet. 3.13. where there is mention of new Heavens, and a new Earth, takes them to be those Heavens, and that Earth, which our Antipodes, (he calls them [...],) generally they of the other Hemi-sphear, do inhabit; and to back this his conceit, (every one knows his wild fancies,) he cites this place of Cle­ment. I am not ignorant that the opinion, that there were An­tipodes, got footing and credit among the learned Romans both beforeCic. Acad. qu. l. 4. Virgil. G. lib. 1., (yet Lucretius De Nat. Rer. lib. 1. explodes it,) and in theMela de situ Orb. lib. 1. cap. 1. Senec. epist. 122. Plin. l. 2. cap. 65. age of Cle­ment. But whether the Christians then living had given it any entertainment, is a great doubt; nay it may well be denied, if we consider with what earnestness in after Ages it was opposed byDivin. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 24. Lactantius, De C. D. lib. 16. c. 9. Augustin, and others. And shall we think that what Clement had once maintained this way, should be by one of his successours, namely P P. Zachary, about the year 745. con­demned for an Heresie, in Vigilius, upon the accusation of Boni­face, (if my Author deceive me not,) our otherwise learned Con­tryman, the Apostle of the Germans, and first Bishop of Mentz. It seems not then very probable, that by these [...] (mundi) he intends; or aims at the Antipodes. Doth he then by this word at random mean any parts whatever of the then habitable world, (perhaps of difficult accesse,) as Propertius doth in this verse:Lib. IV. eleg. 3. ‘Cogor & è tabulâ pictos ediscere mundos?’ It doth not appear so neither, by reason they were Trans Oceanum: And I dare say when he wrote this Epistle, he had no thought [...] of any new discoveries, though Seneca [Page 63] his contemporany would make us beleeve by hisMedea. Act. 2. sc. Audax. fin. Venient annis secula seris, &c. that he foresaw what posterity should detect of the yet unknown world in future ages. What shall we say then? Si praecedens nostra conjectura vera est, saith the Editioner, Bri­tanniae intelligendae veniunt. If we were right before, that Oceanus [...], is the British Ocean; (for Libanius where he describes it, as you heard before, gives the very same Epithet to it,) then by undeniable consequence the Ilands antiently called Britanniae, (this that we live upon, being one, and by far the greatest, di­stinguish'd from the rest by the name of Albion Plin. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 16.,) must be un­derstood by [...], i. The Worlds beyond it. Neither let any man wonder at the insolency of the expression, when he shall (vice versâ) read in holy Writ, all Europe, a third part of what was then discovered of the World, and whatever was on this side the Mediterranean, call'dGen. X. 5. Insulae Gentium, i. The Iles of the Gentiles. For we may as well almost call our Ilands Worlds, as a third part of the World, (of so great a continent,) is called Ilands. But to confirme this more then probable conjecture, I will first bring a place out of the Tragedy of Octavia, written by one of her own domestics, and while Clement was yet alive, and flourishing. The Author makes her speak these words of her fa­ther Claudius th' EmperorAct. 1. Sc. 1.:

What I pray you is Orbis ultra Ocëanum (by which you see she meanes Britain,) but Clement's [...]; The World be­yond Sea? The number need not trouble any one; that may easi­ly be answered for. And the languishing stile of this Tragedy, or whatever else it stands accused ofBy Lipsius, and Jan. Rut­gers. Var. lib. 1. cap. 15., takes nothing either from its antiquity, or authority. Besides I could tell you, a better Scholler then any that except against it, gives very good words of it:Jos. Scalig. epist. 247. & 414. nec inepta est, ne (que) futilis auctoris. Optimum poëma est. And he craves pardon for that he cannot herein, without doing wrong to his own, yeeld to any others contrary judgement whosoever he be. Another place for confirmation heerof shall [Page 64] be out of Manilius: (he liv'd under Augustus, somewhat be­fore Clement:) Astronomic. lib. I.

Jos. Scaliger, out of the written bookEx Biblioth. Monast. Gem­blacens. which he used, reads it Immotus (que) n. p. adding, Non frustrà dixit novos orbes propter Britanniam paulò ante sua tempora à C. Julio Caesare detectam, quam Novum Orbem vocabant. But ignotus would have stood well enough. Firmicus before cals it Mare incognitum; and in the Tragedy but now cited the Britains are said to be antè ignoti, and their SeasAct. 1. sc. Fulgore. Ignota freta. Scaliger indeed was one, who (spight of the obloquy of the Jesuite Scheinerus Christoph. Schein. in Rosâ ursinâ, seu de Macul. Solis, lib. 4. part. 2. cap. 29. p. 761., and his fel­lowes, the sometime fatui nova numina sêcli,) deserved admira­bly well of Manilius: Yet where he had it, that Britain was usually call'd Novus Orbis, I am at this time to seek. In my poor Adversaria I find no such thing; but that it was called Alter Orbis, many testimonies. The curious Reader will not think it a trouble to take a view of some of them. Servius, the antient and learned'st Grammarian, upon that of Virgil Eclog. 1. ‘Et penitùs toto divisos orbe Britannos:’ Britannia, saith he, est Insula sita in Ocëano Septentrionali, & à Poëtis Alter Orbis Terrarum dicitur. What Poëts? You had this vers erewhile upon Claudius conquest of it, and annexing it to the Empire: ‘Conjunctum est quod adhuc Orbis, & Orbis, erat.’ But Claudian, that excellent courtly and neat Poët, some deal more plainly, and to our purpose;In Stilicon. Pan [...]g. III.

And that Britain was Mundus alter he intimates in this:Paneg. 8. in Cons. Manlii Theodori.

But better writers then Poëts say as much; and therefore, that Britain was termed another World, proceeded from no lenocinium of their Art; for it was verily thought to be so. And this con­ceit was it that made the Roman souldiers so unwilling to fol­low A. Plautius Dio, lib. 39. in his expedition hither, taking it to be some service out of the World: so did they imagine concerning [Page 65] Britain. There is a passage in K. Agrippa's speech inDe bello Jud. lib. 2. [...]. Lat. 16. Josephus absolutely for our turn, and which much illustrates this place of Clements. He tels the Jewes there, that the Romans [ [...].] sought for Another World [ [...]] beyond the Ocëan, and carried their armes as far as the Britains, who before that time were unknown, or, had hardly been made mention of in History. The Author of the Panegyrique to Constantius Chlorus th' Emperour, who died atEutrop. lib. 10. York, (it is falsly inscrib'd in the ordinary books to Maximian) doth thus accost him: Gloriare Tu verò, Caesar invicte, Alium Te Orbem Terrarum pe­perisse; & Romanae potentiae gloriam restituendo navalem addidisti Imperio terris omnibus majus elementum. And a little before he had said: Britanniam Caesar, ille auctor vestri nominis, quum Ro­manorum primus intrâsset, Alium se Orbem Terrarum scripsit re­perisse: tantae magnitudinis arbitratus, ut non circumfusa Ocëano, sed complexa ipsum Ocëanum videretur. I do not you see present­ly heerupon (which yet some have done with little thanks for their pains) make question whether Caesar was the Writer of those immortall Commentaries, which we have under his name, because no such passage appears there extant:Vide Clariss. Vossium de Historicis Latinis. much lesse doe I fear there hath been heer any spongia deletilis from the hand of Julius Celsus, whom, by reason of his Recensui in the MS. Co­pies, (no sufficient [...] to pass such a judgement by) other Philologers without calling for the suffrages of the Criticall Se­nat, have resolved to be if not the Author, yet at least the Inter­polator of those excellent writings. I could far better, conside­ring Caesars manner of relating in those books, imagine that the Panegyrist took his scripsit rather out of some other piece, as perhaps his Epistles, which were in many books, his Orations, or Anti-Catones, or especially out of his Ephemerides, which were extant, as appears by Servius In li. 11. Aen., after this Panegyrist's age, but are now with the rest, to the irreparable damage of humane litera­ture in this respect, perisht by the same fate, which many other good writers have sustained, through the malice, shall I say, or laziness rather, of bad men, and times? But though there ap­pear no such expression any where at this day in Caesars own words, yet I can help you with as much as that comes to, con­cerning [Page 66] the same Action and exploit of Caesars, in a most polite Historian of the next Age, who compos'd an elegant Breviary of the Roman affairs under Hadrian Vid. Cl. Sal­mas. in Sparti­an. p. 44. ubi Flori editio­nem promittit., at whose expedition into Britain he hath a fling, and is as well answered by the Emperor in Spartianus. It is L. Florus De Gest. Rom. li. 3. c. 10.. Caesar, saith he, omnibus terrâ mari (que) captis, respexit Ocëanum, & quasi hic Pomp. Sa­bin. legit Orbis Romanus, & alium. Romanis Orbis non sufficeret, Pomp. Sa­bin. legit, Orbis Romanus, & alium. alterum cogitavit. Classe igitur comparatâ, Britan­niam petit. When first I met with this place cited under the name of L. Annaeus, by Pompon. Sabinus In Virgil. Ecl. 1. Et peni­tus toto, &c., Professor at Rome in our Great-Grandfathers memory, I supposed it might have been out of Seneca; but upon recall of my memory, and more diligent enquiry, you have the right Author, who was also of the An­naean Family, and called L. Annaeus Florus, though Stadius that writes a prolix Commentary upon him, observes it not, as I re­member. And yet Lactantius Divin. Instit. lib. 7. cap. 15. may seem to have mistaken Seneca for Florus, reckoning up the severall Ages of the State of Rome, if at least Florus had not that observation from him, whichNot. in Frag. Senecae. Lipsius rather thinks to be true. And I suppose also he had this expression here from Velleius Paterculus, in whom concerning Caesar you read,Histor. li. 2. alterum paenè Imperio nostro, ac suo, quaerens Orbem.

What need I now after these witnesses to allege the forenamed Hegesippus De Excid. Hierosol. lib. the expilator v. Scal. Elench. Tri­haer. c. 4. of Josephus, in whom we read: Britan­nia Alter Orbis, remota à confinio Terrarum? Or Solinus, whose words are:Polyhist. c. 35. Salm. 22. Finis erat Orbis ora Gallici littoris, nisi Britannia insula [...]. non qualibet magnitudine, nomen penè Orbis alterius mere­retur. But for all this could you think this stile and language concerning Britain should be retained so many Ages after Cle­ment, (neer about XI.) and that by one of his Successors in the Sea of Rome; Anselmus, saith the AuthorGervas. Do­robern. Imagin. contra Rob. Abb. S. Aug. MS. in Cottoniana., ab Urbano PP. Pallium suscepit, & tantum ejus gratiae habuit, ut eum Alterius Orbis Papam vocaret. It is well it was so long ago that this speciall Grace was granted to the Arch-bishops of Canterbury. In these our dayes we need not now stand afrighted at the dire influence, of what some fear'd might happen from thence, ex­cept we will cum Larvis luctari, [...]. But [...]. —

Now that which gave Britain the credit to be thought so, was [Page 67] not onely the Ocëan's separating it from the other parts of the World, but the greatness also, and large extent thereof: For some Writers, saith Dio Hist. Rom. lib. 39., (before the Romane fleet under Agri­cola Tacit. in vitâ, & Dio, ubi su­prà. doubled the Cape ofPtolem. Geogr. lib. 2. [...]. Virvedrum, or Dunes-bay, that enorme spatium procurrentium terrarum Tacit. in vitâ, & Dio, ubi su­prà.; in Tacitus Language) brought it into controversie whether it might not rather be cal­led a Continent, as resembling that more, in the expression of Stephanus Steph. By­zant. in [...]. [ [...],] then an Iland. That indeed in Jo­sephus is spoken very high: Penè non minor quàm noster Orbis: Yet may it be excused by the generall mistake of those times; for when he wrote, it was not certainly discovered to be an Iland, and therefore they might say what they would of it.L. De Reb. Geticis. Cujus magnitudinem olim nemo, ut refert Livius, circumvectus est, multis tamen data est varia opinio, de ea loquendi, saith Jernandos. Agri­cola, as is said, under Domitian, was the first Roman that by try­all found it to be so. However, either the reputed greatness be­fore, or the known vast circuit of it, after it was discovered, made it generally to be called THE GREAT ILAND. You have in Aristides Orations, speaking of it,In Aegyp­tiacâ. [...], andPanegyr. in Romam. [...], which in Catullus is,Epigr. 26. ubi Scalige­rum adisis. — ultima Occi­dentis Insula. And Salmasius, the most flourishing Philologer of these times, and generally a very learned man, for qui ad Roma­nam Insulam Proconsulem mittat, in Vopiscus, doth read,Casaub. & Salm. in Fl. Vopisci Floria­num. Magnam Insulam; though Casaubon rather Britanniam Ins. There indeed Britain is undoubtedly meant. For Procopius De b [...]llo Vandal. lib. 1. termes it, (and every body knowes it,) [...]. by far the greatest of all Ilands without Hercules Pillars. [...], saith Dionysius — [...]. Dionys. Alex­andr. in [...]. of the Ilands of Britain, the greatness is extraordinary, or very famous, as Eu­stath. interprets it, which he doth not restrain neither, or con­fine, in comparison of any other whatsoever, within the same bounds that Procopius doth; which may be perchance, because he was more antient. Read him as Priscian, or else Rhemnius Palae­mon, have rendred him.

But the Reader will say, More then enough of this subject; it becomes tedious, and troublesome. Yet nothing ought to be thought so by us, which may any way tend to the honour and glory of this our Iland, the Empress of the Ocean, the Admired, [Page 68] and chiefly to be esteemed Fortunata —Qua meta Britannis, Littera sunt aliis. —Non altera ere­dam Arva Beatorum potiùs dignata fu [...]sse Nomine, jam lon­go quanquam de­cus iflud ab avo Intervertit Iber, & seris addidit undis. Hugo Grotius Inaugur. JA­COB. R., whose Command is only limited with the shoares of the Continent, being, (to speak of Her, after so many forreign antient Testimonies, in the words of one of Her ownSam. Daniel. Poëts,) ‘A WORLD within Her self with wonders blest.’ I will refer therefore a more exact discourse heerof to another time, and a more fitting place; and the Reader likewise, if he think not well of this Interpretation of Clement's words, to Plutarch L. De facie in Orbe Lunae., where he discourses upon Homer's [...]. & δ. [...]; and to Kepler, that Atlas of the Astronomicall Heavens, in his learned Notes upon him.

XXII. A Bird called a Phoenix.] S^t Paul being to prove and make good the Resurrection to the Corinthians, instanceth in grain 1 Cor. 15.36., which being sown, first dieth, and afterwards is quickned. But his Scholler Clement, further to clear and illustrate the same doctrine unto them, maketh use heer of the then late renewed, and much admired Story of the Phoenix, with the discourse thereupon, certainly beleeved by the many. The flight thereof into Egypt is reported by Tacitus Annali VI. A. à conditu LI. DCCXXCVII. Paullo Fab. L. Vitellio. Coss. A. Christi. 34., and others, (yet with some difference,) to happen under Tiberius; about the time I presume, or not long before, Clement was born; And Solinus Polyhist. cap. 46. tels us, that, being taken some thirteen years after, it was by the command of Claudius shewn in publique at Rome, and the whole matter registred for­sooth among the publique Acts of the City. Could I see those Acta he speaks of; or could he tell us that himself saw it, or Pliny rather, (who well might, had it b [...]en at Rome; and whom he doth for the most part but transcribe,) I would say some­thing: Till then onely this; The p [...]eple of Rome, or else he himself, had a more coming beliefe, and easlier to be work'd up­on, then I have; except I were better satisfied in respect of some doubts; one of which arises from a passage in Pliny himself, where he tels us, thatHist. l. 8. c. 21. Adeò naturae ni­hil placuit esse sine pari. v. Tho. Brouni r. Cl. Pseudo­dox. Epidem. lib. 3. ca. 12. Nature would have nothing to have a being without a Fere. However I could easily give way to be perswaded, that Clement had a conceit of the truth of this pretended won­der. The simplicity indeed of the primitive Christians suffred their belief with ease to be abused, and themselves, as may be shewn by almost infinite instances, to be deluded with any thing that savored of Miracles, the memory of those yet remaining [Page 69] fresh, which were really performed, and truly such. And they thought well of this their credulity, as ushering in an acknow­ledgement of a divine and unlimited power in the handy-works of God. If he beleeved it not, then reckon it, if you will, among those piae fraudes they talk of; and conceive that he knew well enough, how much new fangles, and teratologies, could work upon the Corinthians, as well as upon their fellow Grecians Praebuit ma­teriem doctissi­mis Graeco­rum multa su­per eo miraculo disserendi. Tac. ib., for Christianity had not as yet wholly cast out their old leaven.

And yet the Fathers in the following Ages, longo agmine, have either borrowed it out of Clement himself, or else received it from hand to hand, without the least questioning of it. This we may see by Tertullian, Origen. Lactantius. Eusebius, Cyril of Hierusalem, Ambros, Nazianzen, Jerom, Epiphanius, Synesius, Vide Joan. Gazaei [...], a pud Jan. Rurgers. Var. l. 2. c. 7. p. 114. [...]. &c. and others; who all have followed him, or certainly the more antient of them. So thatAnno [...]. in Tertull. lib. de Resurrect. c. 13. Pamelius, andProoem. in Diatax. Bovius, andProoem. in Diatax. Turrian the Jesuite are very much mistaken in affirming so peremptorily thatCateches. 18. Vide D [...]. Ar­machan. Dis­sert. de Clem. & Ignat. scri­ptis, cap. 10. pag. 66. Cyril and Tertullian took this instance from the Apostolical Constitutions; as will appear by comparing them two with Clement; out of whom Tertullian hath al [...]o some of his other arguments and evidences for the Resurrection. Nay, the very Author himself of those Diatax [...]s (for Clement's they are not,) is beholding to him for it: Onely he hath enlarged the narra­tion, and by some circumstances, which he hath added, made it come neerer a fable then it was before, and so the lesse to be be­leeved. Now the Fathers indeed, having to deal with infidels and heathen-men, who granted the story of the Phoenix, induced from thence a perswasion of the Resurrection; that b [...]ing as it were a principle and position, received among themselves. For to say truth, the Resurrection was a strange and uncouth dis­course among them, and no way reconcileable with their reason, and intellectuals. And therefore S. Paul, having preached, and, no doubt, sufficiently declared the doctrine thereof at Athens, yet those Philosophicall peeple, theAct. 17.18. Epicureans and Stoïcs, and the rest of that learned rabble there tookResurrecti­on. [...] to be such a piece of curvum Graecum, that they were presently almost about to enshrine it, and reare an Altar unto it, with an Inscription, among those forreign Numina, which they knew not what to make of them. Neither ought it to be any wonder, if they had [Page 70] very little sentiment of the Resurrection, or indeed none at all, unto whom the Great God of Heaven and Earth, heRom. 8.11. who raised up Jesus from the dead, the 1 Cor. 15.20. first fruits of them that sleep, was no better then [...], The unknown God, as appeares by that Epigraphe Act. 17.23. Adisis Scrip­tores in hunc locum. I sid. in­super. Pelus. epist. 69. lib. 4. & vitam S. Martialis Le­movicens., which Paul took notice of in the same City: and who by the Romans themselves, having the eyes of their minde veyled with the same thick mist of ignorance and unbelief, was termed butPompeius apud Lucanum: Cappodoces mea signa ti­ment, & dedi­ta sacris Incerti Judaea Dei, mollis (que) So­phone. lib. 2. Incertus Deus, andTrebell. Pollio in M. Val. Claud. Imp. ubi de MOSE ei sermo. Numen incertum.

And yet for all this I may very well observe in this place, that there were even among the Heathen themselves, some of better Souls, who, by the meer light of Nature, (for I doe not beleeve that God did reveal unto them the riches of his bounty herein any otherwise then in an ordinary way,) had a shrewd gesse, or ra­ther some good ken, though at a distance, of the Resurrection. Not to urge that verse of Phocylides, ‘And strait we hope to come out of the earth un­to the li [...]ht. But he is thought a Christian by some. [...].’ Nor those of Virgil; (for you'l say they were both Poëts:)

And a little after: ‘Rursus & incipiant in corpora velle reverti:’ I will name two others of better credit: First Democritus, a Grecian, who though he were born Vervecum in patriâ, crasso (que) sub a [...]re Juvenal. sat. 10.; — yet through the glimmering, and foggy light thereof, he could make a shift both to discern, and promise to himself and others also, a time reviviscendi, when as this life should be iterated, or renewed, by death. Thus muchNatur. Hist. l. 7. c. 55. iterari vitam morte, &c. Pliny of him: who indeed seems to have had a more redundant and pe­tulant spleen then Democritus himself, in that he laughs at him for maintaining of that, which he cannot confute, I am sure doth not, any otherwise then those scoffing Philosophers before mentioned in the Acts, Some mocked, &c. a thing unbeseeming the gravity of a Roman, and the wisdome and authority of so great a man. The other is a Roman, the very Sireno-phenix of better Philosophy, Marcus the Emperour, whose words are these:M. Antonin. [...]. lib. XII. § 6. [...], &c. ‘How comes it to passe, saith he, that the Gods having ordered all things in a fair and loving re­spect [Page 71] to mankind, they have overseen this one thing; that, whereas many very good men, and such as have given evidence of their service of God, and have become very familiar with him by their religious exercises and performances, after they are once dead, return no more, but are extinguisht for ever? Now, (if indeed it be so,) know for a certain, that they would have ordered it otherwise, if it had been fitting to have been otherwise, &c.’ This he speaks in a kind of condescen­sion to the common received errour among the Heathen in op­position to the Resurrection: But by this clause, or Parenthesis, [...], that is, if indeed it be so, that they restore not good men to life again; and by another that followes in the same discourse, [...], that is, if it be not so indeed, that good men return again to life; it seemes to me most apparent, that this most divine man for his own part had a deep conceit, and a strong apprehension of the Resurrection of the body after death. Such excellent illuminations had these gallant spirited men beyond what the Stoa, or Peripatus, ever dreamt of.

As for this passage of the Phenix, the Emblem of the Resur­rection, heer in Clement, we find no bodies exception against it, either before or after Photius the Patriarch of CP. he indeed ex­presses his dislike, [ [...],Biblioth. Num. 126.] that the Author should use this instance as an example of absolute truth. But if he had, as he was a true learned Critique, so also considered when it is that the Antient writers of the Church do speak [...], that is doctrinally and seri­ously, and when [...], (as their own expression is,) that is, as subservient to their purpose, and by way of Rhetoricall or­nament, perhaps he would have spared his censure. Yet he doth not therefore abdicate this Ep. from Clement, as some do, who think he would never in so serious a discourse make use of the flying talk of his own Age, and a questionable report that had no eye-witness for the Author of it, a meer Pageant brought but the other day upon the stage; not remembring perhaps that the tale of the Phenix is of far longer standing, mentioned byIn Euterpe. Herodotus, and others, many ages before either Paullus Fabius and L. Vitellius were Consuls, or Clement himself born; So [Page 72] that I needed not so much as to have named Ovid Metamorph. 15. Geo. Sandys Interprete., had not his description so neerly agreed with Clement's, or been indeed the very same. I will add it heer therefore to close up this discourse, and the rather, because the whole businesse being accounted Poëtry, which is but plain fiction, it will shew a great deal more hansom in verse; especially being translated almost aswell to the envy, as admiration of the Reader. This is it:

XXIII. For nothing is impossible for God to doe, except it be to lye.] Clement doth heer, no doubt, allude to two severall places of Scripture, Tit. 1.2. where it is said, God cannot lye: and Ebr. 6.18. where we likewise read, that it was impossible for God to lye, [ [...],] which the learnedDe Jure Bel. & Pacis, lib. 2. cap. 13. § 3. Grotius rather renders fallere, then mentiri; as Beza, We, and generally all Interpreters do. But some of the Fathers, Tho. Aquin. part. 1. qu. 25. art. 3. & 4. and the Schoolemen specially, affe­cting such manner of expressions as these, whereby the Power of God may in some sort seem to be restrained to bounds and [Page 73] limits in respect of certain particular actions, not onely forgot the reverent awe and esteem they ought to have had concerning the extent, and Almightiness thereof; (for how little a portion Job 26.14., saith Job, have we heard of it? the thunder of his power who can understand?) But even the Hethen man's rule;Cicero. Homini de pote­state Deorum pauca, & timidè, sunt dicenda. And but good reason; whenas to Kings, (but mortall Gods,) and concerning their power, (which is indeed, in respect had to the Divine, not so much as a poor punctum to the immense Ʋnivers,) one of the wisest of nature'sSolon, Plutar­cho. X [...]nopha­nes, Hesychio Illustrio. Ari­stot. aliis. Sons advised to speak, [...], or short, or sweet. For how much more is the Lawyers language to be approved of, then Jerom's, that great Divine, yet both ex­pressing the same thing? His words are, in one of his hot fits of his immoderate dotage upon Virginity: Epist. 22. ad Eustoch. de custod. virgin. Audenter loquar: Cùm omnia possit Deus, suscitare virginem non potest post ruinam. The others far more moderate, and mannerly, though saying as much:C. de rap. virg. l. Unic. Virginitas corrupta restitui non potest. I will not so much as name the Hethen Poëts, who enslaved their Gods to the observance of conditions from a fatall necessity of the Destinies, which to alter they would have not more unlawfull for them, then impossible. And the Philo [...]ophers (the most I mean) were little better, if not worse: So that Jupiter inIn Timone. [...]. &c. Lucian, hearing the blasphemies, and the unreverent Speeches of Timon concer­ning the divine Providence, and Power of God, made no questi­on of ground enough from thence to conclude him a Philosopher; though truly he was no such man. Yet some more generall ex­pressions of theirs that way may be excused, if withall we under­stand God's Will by his Power: as that of Plutarch; Alluding I think to A [...]a­tho's verses: [...]. [...]. It is impossible for God to ren­der that undone, which hath been done. Because neither doth he will it should be so. ForPsal. 135.6. Psal. 115.3. he hath done whatsoever he will both in heaven and earth. And indeed Plato tels us, that [ [...].] God cannot will to alter himself. By which perhaps Attic Moses, (for so Antiquity call'd him) meant nothing else but [ [...],Ebr. 6.17. in Paul's Language,] the immutability of the Counsell of God. For having in his Common-wealth De Rep. l. III. given leave not onely to Physicians, but unto Magistrates also upon occasion, to tell a lye; yet will he [Page 74] by no meanes permit it unto God, as being a note or signe of infirmity and weakness; he by so much the more thereby asser­ting and vindicating the divine and unlimited power of God. And heer, before we have done, let us observe, that Clement, ma­king it a thing not possible in God to lye, doth in the foregoing words assigne the reason thereof to be his own Will: God, saith he, that hath commanded others not to lye, much less will he himself lye: following therein S^t Paul, who layes as one of the grounds of the same impossibility, the immutability of Gods Counsell, or Will; as appeares by the forenamed places. And so the Stoics also (the very best of Philosophers) do set the Will of God as it were a li­mit or bound to his power, and alwaies joyn them together. Hence are those expressions out of their School: Sen. de Irâ, lib. 2. c. 27. Dii immortales, nec volunt abesse, nec possunt. And; Erras, si quis putat eos nocere velle; non possunt, nec accipere injuriam queunt, nec facere. AndId. ep. 92. again: Sua illis in legem aeterna voluntas est. statuerunt, quae non mutarent. Id. de Benef. l. 6. ca. 23. Ita (que) non possunt videri facturi aliquid, quasi ut nolint; quia quicquid detinere non possunt, perseverare voluerunt: nec unquam primi consilii deos poenitet; and what follows in that di­vine and high discourse. Read Pliny, l. II. cap. 7. ad finem.

XXIV. Who shall say unto him, What hast thou don? &c. A very learned Gentleman,D^r HA. and my good friend, among some other doubts concerning the antiquity, and Author of this Epistle, maketh his quoting this place out of theWisd. 12.12. and 11.21. Wisdome of Salomon to be one: (for thither is the Reader referr'd in the Margin of M^r Yong's Graeco-latin. edition, p. 37.) and thus he reasons, if we mistake him not:

Philo the Jew, by the learned in Antiquities in former ages, is generally thought to have written that book; now he being co­temporary with Clement, or not much antienter, it is not very probable that Clement should make use of his authority; as not needing to prove so undeniable a Truth, to descend to so inferi­our and late a testimony as his; that Book being not urged by the antient Christians ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam, as Jerom tels us: For indeed

Therefore this Epistle may seem not to be of such antiquity, as to have Clement for the Author thereof.

For answer whereunto, not to be troublesome in telling you, that the Jews had another Book under this Title, Secretiori linguâ compositum, &c. (for it is nothing to our purpose; and we should therein but rely upon the credit ofJo. Picus in Comment. su­per Genesin. one, who doth not say him­self ever saw it;) We may in the first place question it very wel, whether Philo were the Author of this we have; for there is nei­ther vola, nor vestigium in his own works to prove it to be so, or indeed in any ones else antienter then Jerom, that I can now tell of. And we know full well how his [...] fail'd him in this point, to instance in no more thenSo that he puts Seneca among his Ec­cles. Scripto­res. Seneca's Epistles to Paul, and his back again to Seneca, so much approved of by him to be genuine. Now whereas he cites others authority for it, he should have named them: but therein too he varies from himself; for one while he tels us the Jewes Prolog. in li. Sap. affirm it; another while that some of the antient Writers. And for that piece of Criticism of his [Graecam eloquentiam redolet, Praefat. in Li­bros Salomo­nis.] it doth not so absolutely (for I take not upon me now to examine it; or how neer the stile is to Philo's,) conclude that this Book was never extant in the Ebrew, though lost it seems before Jerom's time; which might perhaps have been occasioned by this Greec version thereof by some of the Hellenists, or Jewes of Alexandria; it may be Philo himself. For Philo's Legation to Rome was under Caius Caligula th' Emperour, and unto him, in behalf of his Country-men; be­fore which many years he might have publisht that Book in Gr. (if ever he did it) yea by far the greater part of an Age before this Epistle was written. But neither do learned men of later times incline to beleeve that it is of Philo's writing. To name onely the most learnedHugo Grot. de Satisfact. Christ. c. 1. p. 20. Grotius for all. He indeed acknow­ledgeth him, whoever it was that wrote it, Praestantissimum Scriptorem; and although not in the Ebrew Canon, Venerandam tamen habet antiquitatem, & apud Christianos SEMPER in pretio est habitus. To say freely what I think: Why may not Clement in this place allude to the 9. ver. of Esay XLV? as it is probable enough the Author of the Wisdom of Salomon might. For before these words we see noIt is written. [...], norThe holy Word saith. [...], or yetHe saith somewhere. [...], or such like; usuall terms most an end with Clement, [Page 76] when he cites, and doth not onely allude to, certain Scripture. Or why might he not have in his minde his Masters words, Rom. IX. 19.20? the very [...]. verbs are aswell there used by S^t Paul, as the Author of that book, and Clement in his expression hath no more out of either of them. Now we have told you before his manner of quoting Scripture. But by the same reason that Clement is said to cite this out of the Wisdome of Salomon, I may say also that S^t Paul doth as well borrow that instance of the Potter and clay from the same book; because there we read:Wisd. 15.7. The potter of the same clay maketh both vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise such as serve to the contrary. And so might Clement be justified (in case he had this place thence) by an example beyond all exception: yet we conceive Paul rather had his eye upon the fore-quoted place of Esay, or that of Jere­my XVIII. 6. Now what if Clement did cloth his sense and mea­ning in that Authors words? yet he cites them not for Scripture, no more then S. Paul doth an Iambick verse1 Cor. 15.33. [...]. Evil communicati­ons, &c. out of one of Me­nander's Comedies, without naming the Author of it. And I hope also that Clement's elsewhere referring us to Hethen Histo­ries Pag. 69. [...], &c., and mentioning likewise the Story of Judith for an ex­ample, may not prove more offensive then the same Paul's alle­ging the testimonies ofAct. 17.28. Aratus the Astronomical, orTit. 1.12. Epimeni­des the Epic, Poëts. Though there are I know a sort of men even at this day in the world that start at all that is not Canon, and call for the firing of all books, butPropheta mandabat ne­quis lib um haberet prae­ter sacra Bi­blia, reliqui flammâ ab­sumpti. Sleidan. Com. lib. 10. Bibles, and Almanacs. For all the mad men met not at Munster.

XXV. Are not justified by our selves, or by our own wisdom, &c.] Those Papists sure, who shall light upon this place, will not (except they run to their usuall [...], or starting-hole, The Heretics have corrupted it;) any longer cry Antiquity for their Doctrin of Merits, and Justification by wo [...]kes: as they do in all other points controverted between us, and them. Clement, the an­tientest Writer of the Church, next the Apostles, you see knew no such Doctrin: And Id sanc notandum, Crit. sacri lib. 1. cap. 8. p. 143. ult. edit. as Rivet saies very well.

XXVI. Let not the strong despise the weak; let the weak reverence them that are strong.] What Clement heer desires in the Primitive Christians of Corinth is said to be the rare felicity (but that we [Page 77] cannot beleeve that courtly Historian's flatteries) of Tiberius age somewhile before:Vell. Pater. cul. Hist. l. 2. Antecedit, non contemnit, humiliorem potens: suspicit potentem hum [...]lis, non timet. Let these words bear a Christian sense, and Clement cannot be better gloss'd upon; though I must confess the Gloss is somewhat antienter then the Text it self.

But at set times and hours.] A lateThe use of daily publick prayers. printed 1641. p. 5. Writer of our own,XXVII. to maintain set times for Public Praiers, which they of the Church of Rome call Canonical Hours, allegeth this place of Clement: ‘It seemes, saith he, by Clemens, that no small part of that [...], or good order required by S^t Paul (whose minde he might best know, as one of his Disciples,) 1 Cor. 14.40. doth consist in the due observing of those times and hours limited and prescribed by authority for our praiers and devotions.’ But I desire his own words may be look'd upon, pag. 52. 53. Well: we have look'd upon them, and at first sight perceive that the Author of that Treatise would have us to find, what indeed is not to be found there. [...]. So that certainly himselfe either read this whole passage with a great deal of oscitancy and heedlesness; and so understood not Clement's drift therein; or else, which is far a worse shame, he hath dealt malâ fide, and stands guilty by the Cornelian Law as a falsary, in urging a testimony (which is as bad as forging one,) that witnesseth no such thing, as he takes upon him to prove; namely, that the antient Christians had any set houres or times appointed for Public Praiers. In a word, this is the manner of Clement's rea­soning: As under the Law God ordered that Oblations, and other duties of his Worship should be performed at determined seasons, set times, and houres, as also in the due place appointed, and by such as were ordained therunto, according as God had cōmanded; So like­wise should every one of them who were now under the Gospel, give thanks unto God with a good conscience, and [...], &c. not exceeding the prescribed rule of their ministry do those things [ [...]] that the Lord ordered them to do; and that with the same cheerfulness, and diligence, as the Jewes performed their Obser­vances, and servic [...]s, under the Law. For it is plain to any atten­tive Reader that by [ [...]] he meanes onely the observation of times and seasons according [Page 78] to Jewish Ordinances: TheJohn 4.23. true worshippers of God in Spirit and Truth, being now no more confinedGal. 4.10, 9. to observe dayes, and months, and times, and years, (being part of those Gal. 4.10, 9. weak and beg­garly rudiments of the Law,) then we are, God be thanked, in re­spect of place, bound to go on Pilgrimage to Jerusalem; John 4.20. some­time notwithstanding the onely seat of his publique Worship.

XXVIII. But the Lay-man is bound to the observation of Lay-ordinances.] CLEMENT, in the words next going before, doth set down the degrees of the Jewish Hierarchy, consisting of the High-Priest, the Priests, and the Levits; calling all the rest Laics, or Lay­men, as we now term them: that is, more obscure, and less no­ble. That heer he onely means and mentions the Orders of the Jewish Church, is most plain and evident: for those of the Christian he names not till anon in what follows, where you shall hear of them. By how much the more I wonder, that a man of that great learning and gravity, should with such assu­rance and confidence urge this place to confute theEpiscopacy by Divine Right, part. 2. § 11. p. 75. 76. weak sug­gestions, ignorance, and Cavils of Vedelius, and others, (as he pleases to speak) denying, that in Ignatius's time (somewhat af­ter Clement) any distinction in the Church, as of the Clergy and Laity, to be on foot: as he doth likewise understand the sentence, save one, next afore this, [ [...], &c. So the Priests have their own place, or office, assigned them:] of Christian Priests, or Presbyters. For Priest and Presbyter are the same with him. And to back this Authority alleged out of Clement, (none at all in effect to his purpose,) he brings as bad a one, or worse, out of Ignatius his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna: Let the Lay-men be subject to the Deacons; and so forth: (and so forsooth they shall have a fine time of it.) 'Tis true indeed, that, in those six more genuine Epistles of his, there isAd Smyrn. & Magnesianos. twice mention of Lay­men. [ [...].] But there are infinite interpolations, and additi­ons, which have by bad hands been intermixed there, and inter­laced in the current of time; and this mentioning of Laics is one of those patches which have been sow'd to the old garment, as appears by comparing the later Greec copies with the antient Latin Translation out of the yet not corrupted Copies in Greec, or at least not with that boldnesse and liberty, as they have been since, to the unspeakable wrong, as well of antiquity, as posterity.

And this being observed, will, with the Readers good leave and patience, give me occasion to doe Ignatius a piece of right, for which indeed he is especially beholding to that true Bishop D^r Ʋsher, whose learning it were an offence to praise or admire, his piety being such, and the holiness of his conversation. There is a passage in one of his Epistles, at whichGuil. Per­kins in Probl. Jo. Milton, &c. very learned men have taken great offence, and very deservedly. It is that to the Church of Smyrna, where we find in the Greec edition: [...].Prov. 24.21. My son, saith he, honour God and the King: But, I say; Honour God indeed as the Author and Lord of all: and the Bishop, as the High-Priest: and after him we ought to honour the King. This they say, and truly, doth in plain terms contradict the Spirit of God in Salomon: From which presumptuous gain-saying to ex­cuse Ignatius, we may take notice that this is but an adulterate piece, and foisted in of late, which for very shame the greatest friends of Episcopacie forbear to urge in their behalfe, and it is utterly wanting in that antient Latin Interpreter of these Epistles, never publisht, till within these two years by that most reverent and godly Primate.

But to return to these Laics. Of the two witnesses we see urg'd, to prove a distinction between them and the Clergy, in the first age of the Church; one of them saies nothing to it; the other is spurious, and supposititious. That the word (Laic) might indeed be in some use in the most primitive times, we may grant, because we find it heer; Yet then was it but as one of those words, which the Grammarians callQuae semel tantùm ab ali­quo auctore usurpatae sunt, v. Eustath. ad [...]. [...]. and to this day it hath not gotten any room in our common Lexicons. Neither hear we any more of it after this, (except in Acula the Jewes Gr. who translates the1 Sam. 21.6. Shew-bread [...], as Theodo­ret witnesseth,) till Tertullian's time, and the Compiler of those Canons and Constitutions, which they call Apostolicall: both who undoubtedly had it from hence, (but applied it otherwise,) as they had the businesse of the Phenix likewise, before mentio­ned, and other things also. So in like manner wasDionys. Ha­licarn. Plin. hist. li. 2. c. 17. [...] a known word to the world in the Apostles time; yet not so ap­plyed by the Primitive, that we can any where read of, as it was [Page 80] by the Church in after Ages, when she called, not onely her self, but the Epistles also of James, Peter, John, and Jude, Catholique. But the word it self being no more rife at that time then it was, the thing then assuredly could not be in any very common use, or practice. Now in Clement himself, where it is onely to be found in that age, [...] signifies no more Christian Lay-people, then in Quintilian, (who liv'd when Clement)Instit. li. 2. cap. 13. praecepta [...] signifies the Catholic commands of the Church. For indeed how could it? that difference in persons (as we may well conjecture, and not be laugh'd at for our weakness,) being not yet observed: And we know that names are not altogether of as antient birth as things themselves are. I said but conjecture: But Salmasius Olim omnes Presbyteri erant Laici. De Pres. & Ep. ca. 5. p. 396. 398. &c., [...], will tell you aloud and peremptorily, that there was no distinction at all; that the Presbyters, or Clergy, as we call them, and Laymen, were all one. For the Christian Presbyter Vid. Clariss. Selden. Com. in Eutych. n. 9. being derived from the Jewish, they were no more separated from the peeple by any priestly holiness, then the Presbyters among the Jewes were; who indeed had nothing of the Priest about them, save by accident, which might distinguish them from the Laity. * * * * * * * * * * *

It appeares then, by what hath been said, that, although after ages did admit of this distinction of Laity and Clergy in the Church, yet no such difference is to be proved out of Clement, or Ignatius, as hath been pretended and urg'd, but indeed too pe­remptorily, not to say any more.

XXIX. After an exact view taken thereof.] Gr. [...]. The Verb signifies to examine what blemishes there were, or what was pe­rished, in the sacrifice, as M^r Yong hath taught us out of Philo, the other Clement, and Chrysostome. In Polycarpus, who had it from this Clement, it was corrupted, till my L. of Armagh resto­red it. This I finde in Lucian's language, [...]. First to search and examine the sacrifice whe­ther it were perfect and entire, or no. It is ill rendred therefore in the Lexicon's, reprehensoris animo confiderare, vel observare. And let me by the way mend a place in the learned Latin-Greec Glos­sary printed by Harry Stephans. Aruspex, [...]. read [...]. The antient β was very like μ, onely it wanted the tail, fashioned thus μ, and that in some printed books, as in [Page 81] Callimachus by Frobenius for example, and divers others. So the mistake was easie: Or if not so,Altar. [...] seemed to the Calligraphi, or Transcribers, to have neerest relation in their judgement to the Priest, and so took it for the former part of the composition of this word, rather then [...]. The emendation is justified by Donat. In Ter. Phorm. Act. 4. sc. Geta. the Grammarian: Haruspex ab harugâ nominatur: nam haruga dicitur hostia, ab harâ in quâ concluditur & servatur. And Velius Longus almost in the same manner, but that I think the one may be mended by the other. Arispex ab ariugâ, quae esset hostia. Which is confirmed by Dionys. of Halicarnassus Antiq. Rom. lib. 2. [...]. because he did [...], take a view of the sacrifice, that it were not defective. Gloss. Haruspex, [...]. This was call'd by the Romans,Plin. l. 8. c. 45. Victimarum probatio. Hence we readCic. 2. in Rull. hostiae probatae, and exta probata. Tertull. Apologetico:Tibul. lib. 3. Ʋt mirer cum hostiae probentur penes vos à vitiosissimis sacerdotibus.

To be Bishops and Deacons.]XXX. As to express the gravity of those Governours, which they had constituted over the Christi­an Churches, the Apostles called them [...], Elders, bor­rowing the name from the 70. in the Old Testament. So like­wise to signifie their office, Clement heer intimates in the follow­ing words, that they stiled them, [...], Bishops, taking also the denomination from the same LXX. Interpreters, Esai. 60.17. where we read out of the Ebrew, I will also make thy OfficersPraefectos. Tremel. peace, and thine exactors righteousnesse. But the Vulgar: Ponam visitationem tuam pacem, &c. Now visitatio is [...]. Clement in this very Ep. [...]. In the visitation of the Kingdome of Christ. That in Clement, Bishop and Presbyter signifie the same Order, is most manifest to any attentive Rea­der: and it may be gathered from this very place: to spare others more evident for it till anon. For if by Bishops heer Cle­ment did not mean Presbyters, it may be inferr'd very well, that Presbyters were not instituted by the Apostles in their preaching up and down, and constituting Churches and officers, [...], in severall Cities and Countries, as he tels us: For why else are they omitted by him, whose business it is heer to set them down, and that as exactly, as he had done a little before the Jewish Hierarchy? But it is more manifest by what followes. For Cle­ment [Page 82] reasons thus: To turn out them, who have unblamably and in holiness performed the office of their Episcopacy [ [...]] is no small sin; But ye, Corinthians, have turn'd out your Pres­byters, (so he cals them they had turn'd out,) Ergo. For to say thatEpisc. by di­vine Right. part. 2. § 10. p. 60. belike they ejected their Bishop, and Presbyters too, were to say that which were not, and Clement never intended.

XXXI. That strife and contention would arise about the name of Episco­pacy.] I think the time is now, saithCollect. of Speeches. p. 76. S^r Edward Deering, urging this place. And yet he will not allow B^p Hall, though Clement tels us that Bishops were constituted by the Apostles, both in the foregoing, and following words, to prove from thence his Epi­scopacy by Divine Right. Now whether by the name of Episcopacy in this place we mean the bare Title onely, or else the power resi­ding in the person and office of a Bishop; as we understand [...], and Romanum nomen; the learned Knight I think did not amisse in taking these words by way of a prophecy: For Episcopacy, as we take it at this day, some will tell you hath had shrewd girding at it many agesPerantiqua, & celeberri­ma quaestio de Ordine Hieratico. Selden. ago, (and that not by Aërius onely,) before either Martin-mar-Prelate was born, or this present Parliament was summon'd.In Epist. ubi se cum Hie­ron. confert. Austin himself tels us that it was but vocabulum honoris, quod Ecclesiae usus obtinuit. And in antient times, which is most to be wondred at, it was not the silly state, and train, such as it was, of some Bishops, which was so much excepted against, and exposed to censure, as their very want and poverty. Chrysostome got envy by it, when, but to ease his aged and impotent limbs, he rode up and down the streets upon a poor Ass, as often as his occasions call'd him abroad in that greatConstantinople. City: Himself will tell you what the peeple said of him; Whoh! say they, he hath servants to attend him Homil. 1. in Titum., and rides about upon an Ass: why is he placed above us? Now that you may understand his retinue was not great, no more then for his necessary uses, himself again inHomil. 9. ad Philip. another place, makes going into publique assemblies with a multitude of followers, and to ride on Hors-back, two pieces of State by no meanes to be tolerated in a Bishop. And such was the po­verty of the British Bishops in the fourth Age, that being cal­led by Constantius to the Councel ofRimini, hodiè, ut Leander, & alii. Ariminum, they had not wherewithall to carry themselves over sea, much less to keep [Page 83] them; but were fain to be maintained out of the Emperours Exchequer; Which though Sulpitius Severus Hist. sacrae, lib. 2. highly commend in them, yet he that gave him the relation, did it quasi obtrectans, to their disgrace, and upbraiding them with their need and exi­gency. How they were provided for at the Councell upon the Emperours cost, I cannot tell: But it seems at home their al­lowance was not much better then those Irish Bishops, which was no more then three milch Cowes, and in case any of them became dry, the Parishioners supplyed them again; as their own relation was to Adam of Breme in Germany; whom they took in their way from Italy homeward. I may fit both with that ex­cellent character of those poor countrey-bishops of Italy in Am­mianus Marcellinus Lib. 27., an Hethen Historian: Quos tenuitas edendi potandi (que) parcissimè, vilitas etiam indumentorum, & superc: lia hu­mum spectantia, perpetuo Numini veris (que) ejus cultoribus ut puros commendabant & verecundos. Not but that then there were swaggering Bishops, and far unlike these; for in the same place he tels us, that the competition and contention about the Papa­cy between Damasus and Ʋrsicinus was so violent, that the car­cases of 137. men slain in the quarrell were drawn out of oneBasilicâ Sicinini. Church, and Viventius the Lieutenant to the Emperour was forc't to make his retreit into the suburbs, till the rage of the peeple, and their strife was ended. And the impartiall Historian makes the reason and grounds of these contentions to be their immoderate wealth, ease, and honour, after they were thus set­tled; being then enricht with the gifts and presents of great Ladies, they rode in Coaches through the streets, they were choicely suited in their apparell, their diet dainty, in so much that their feasts outwent the ordinary provision at Kings Tables. And that Marcellinus doth them no wrong heerin, the studious Reader may see by the Constitution L. 20. C. The­od. de Episc. Eccl. & Clericis. of Valent. Valens, and Grati­an, directed to the same Damasus, forbidding all Ecclesiasticall persons, or such as belonged to them, to visit widows houses, &c. to receive any thing from such kind of weemen either by dona­tion, or Legacy. If they did, that it should be forfeited to the Exchequer, &c. And Damasus was fain, though full sore against his will, to give order for publishing of it in all the Churches of Rome. But [...]. enough of this.

Now the contention about the name, or power, of Episcopacy, was never so great, but the acceptions of the word before the Apostles time were as various.In [...]. Eustathius tels us that it was sometimes taken for [...], [...]. a spy, or scout. Elsewhere in Homer I finde it for a protector, or defender; and in this sense Hector is call'd by his wife [...]. Episcopus Trojae; The defender of the Trojans, their wives, and children. It was an office, or Ma­gistracy rather, among the Athenians, of which Suidas, and [...]. Aristophanes Scholiast, besidesDe Rep. A­then. ca. 35. v. Guid. Pancirol. de Magistr. Mu­nicipal. c. 13. Postel, or rather Possardus; but especially see Meursius in his Attic Antiquities. Cicero tels us that Pompey would have him to be,Ad Attic. l. 7. Epist. 10. quem tota Campana, & maritima ora habeat [...], ad quem delectus, & summa negotii referatur; by which words you see what power he had. And in the Pandects Arcadius calls them Episcopos F. de muner. & honor. l. fin. § item. qui praesunt pani, & caeteris venalibus rebus quae Civitatum populis ad quotidia­num victum usui sunt; which is just as much as Clarks of the Market.

XXXII. The forenamed officers.] Gr. [...]. That is, Bishops, and Deacons. The Apostles appointed Overseërs and Ministers un­to them that should beleeve, as well in the Churches of Rome and Corinth, as elsewhere. Where, by the way, take notice, that Pe­ter's parts, and authority, in that businesse, were no more then any ones else beside: for Clement speaks generally [...], and [...], The Apostles, and Our Apostles. Secondly, we may gather from Clement, that not onely the Apostles themselves, but [...]. others also taken notice of for their prudence, did constitute Bishops, and Deacons; but it was with the generall consent and agree­ment of the whole Church; [ [...],] otherwise, they were not thought lawfully called, or chosen to their office; and so might not challenge any subjection, or re­spect, from the peeple.

Now in defining what kind of Bishops these were, which the Apostles constituted; and in assigning every first Bishop his par­ticular place, or seat, I conceive Antiquity did not a little mistake; not to say they dealt too peremptorily and presumptuously therein. That I may not be thought to take too much upon me in so high, and seemingly arrogant a censure; I shall, as-well for the Readers satisfaction, as for mine owne excuse and defence, [Page 85] alledge a very notable place out of Eusebius, esteemed generally the Father and fountain of Church History, who directly ac­knowledgeth it a thing of great difficulty, to set down who were left by the Apostles the Bishops of severall Churches, confessing all the light he had heerin to come from the Acts of the Apo­stles, and Paul's Epistles. The place is Eccl. Hist. lib. III. cap. IV. whither the Reader may have his recourse at pleasure. Now for us to make our boasts of Antiquity, and to ground our discourse, in the point we have in hand, upon the testimony and traditi­ons of the antients, when as Eusebius himself, one so antient, and that made such diligent search and enquiry into this business, freely confesseth, that all the certainty of his knowledge there­about was from meere Scripture, is a thing in my conceit of ex­treme lightness and vanity. Not to adde heer, what I formerly took notice of, how great a flaw and breach there is in the histo­ry of the first times of the Church next the Acts, which indeed did set the invention of after ages on work to write a Supple­ment in place of those true Records, which most likely perished, at what time the flame of persecution devoured the Christians themselves not more, then their particular Acta, and Me­morials.

For the future gave them moreover in command.] The Gr.XXXIII. [...]. I translated it as you see, having then in my mind what Plato's [...] signified; and being now in hast, I let it passe so. Perhaps upon advice with some to ad­vertise me better, I shall alter it. M^r Yong had turned it; ac de­scriptas deinceps ministrorum officiorum (que) vices reliquerunt, reading by conjecture [...], for [...] in the Copy. D^r Ʋsher: Eum (que) ordinem deinceps praescripserunt. Salmasius: Et interim etiam prae­ceptum dederunt. D^r Hall: and gave thereupon a designed order or list of Offices; coming neerest M^r Yong. D^r Turner of Merton Colledge would have it read [...],Vide Dn. Armachan. de Ignat. script. ca. 18. p. 137. ut continuatio Episcopatus ab Apostolis stabilita significetur; and this reading is confirmed for him by a place in Nazianzen: What the Lord hath, ordained by his Apostles, those things re­main good and firm. [...] speaking of the Apostles constituting of Bishops. It is in his Epistle to Dracontius, who had forsaken his Episcopall function: So that Graham, late B. of Orkney, was not the first that voluntarily took upon him [Page 86] such a Penance, as is averred. M^r Bois of Ely had a thought it might be read [...], by which choice, or Election is understood. We see with what disagreement this short sentence is interpre­ted. It remains therefore onely that we cry out with the Poët,— — [...]! And yet let me further observe for the more curious Readers sake, that this very word [...] hath oc­casioned little lesse trouble in one of Constantinus Porphyrogenneta the Emperours Constitutions, where it is read scarce with any good sence: [...], &c. as Leunclavius set it forth, and translates it, Quum restitutio fit in possessionem, si quidem in caussâ pauperum, &c. But the learned French Lawyer Carolus Labbaeus in a later edition thereof, which I now use, mends it thus out of his written book: [...]. rendring it Possessione autem in solutum datâ, or, In possessione facta solutione.

XXXIV.—their Episcopacy. Blessed are those Elders. —] The Gr. [...]. &c. Which the Author of Epi­scopacy by Divine Right translates: — these offices of Episcopacy. And withall, blessed are those Presbyters. You see what he drives at by adding de suo this Nota [...], [And withall,] wanting in the Originall.

XXXV. In the very beginning of his Gospel.] He meanes Paul's I to the Corinthians. Paul himself Rom. 2.16. according to my Gospel, that is, my [...], or the doctrine which I preached, as Chrysostome interprets him: Not that Paul is to be thought ever to have written the history of Christs [...], or conversation in the flesh. Ex his, Exercit. sac. lib. 6. ad dict. ad Rom. I. saith the accurate Heinsius, similibus (que) locis pro­fluxisse videtur, ut antiqui [...] nomine scripta Apostoli cita­rent; alleging this place of Clement: And he adds moreover, from the word going before, [ [...], in the beginning,] Ex hoc suspicari fortè quis possit, primam ordine, quae prior nunc est ad Co­rinthios, tunc habitam. M^r Yong likewise brings a place out ofContra A­pollinar. Gregory Nyssen, where he citing this sentence out of the Epistles of John; 1 Joh. 5.19. The whole world lyeth in wickedness; bestows likewise upon them the Title of [...], The Gospel. Clement refers you to 1 Cor. 1.12. Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. By occasion of which words I might heer take upon me to make a defence for Jerom, whose words, urging [Page 87] this place of S^t Paul, some do force to such an interpretation, as if by it he would prove, that ever since the time that these words were cast out by the Corinthians, the equality among Presbyters ceased, and that thereupon one was placed as a Bishop, or Overseër, above the rest. But this matter isv. Salm. con­tra Petar. de Episc. cap. 4. already ab aliis occupata. And although Jerom had written so; (which he doth not, as will appear to any one that shall diligently examine his words,) yet this Epistle written by Clement to the Corinthians, neer about XL. yeers after that of Paul's unto them, evidently shews that the same Idea and form of government remained still among them. Not to tell you, which I have done before, that Jerom was very well acquainted with this Epistle, as who took the pains to translate it into Latin: and so the less likely to think or publish any such thing, finding so great proof and in­stance to the contrary, as in the reading heerof he needs must have done.

For your siding was with Apostles.] Observabis hîc, XXXVI. it is the learned Salmasius his observation, Cepham in Epistola ad Co­rinthios de Petro Apostolo Clementem intellexisse, cùm quidam in­terpretum de quodam alio Cepha acceperint. Sure those Interpreters he meanes were such, as did not like to see Peter rankt after Apollos, or Paul himself, so much it stood against his pretended Primacy. And yet the Antients talk of another Cephas, that should be one of the Seventy Disciples, of whom Clem. Alex. inEccl. hist. lib. 1. ca. 123. Euseb. and the counterfeit Dorotheus. But for satisfaction hear Jerom In Epist. ad Gal. cap. 2., who tels us, Alterius nescio cujus Cephae nescire nos no­men, nisi ejus qui & in Evangelio, & in aliis Pauli Epistolis, & in hac quoque ipsa modò Cephas, modò Petrus inscribitur. Now that which Clement tels the Corinthians heer, is this; That, whereas in the former schisms and factions they followed and adhered to such as were either Apostles themselves, or else one that had extra­ordinary testimony from them, they now had for the ring-leaders of their sedition a few persons of far inferiour quality; and therefore their offence was the greater, and themselves left the more inexcusable.

Seeing then there are many Gates.] This pericope, or passage,XXXVII. is transcribed, as you find it heer, by Clemens Alexandrinus, Stro­mat. lib. 4.

XXXVIII. Say one be faithfull, &c.] So likewise is this cited by the same Clement, in the same book, and also in the VI. but with somewhat more difference in the reading.

XXXIX. Who is able to express the bond and tye of Gods love?] This sentence we finde translated in Jerom, who makes use of it in his Comment. on the IV. Chap. to the Ephes. Cujus res, saith he, & Clemens ad Corinthios testis est, scribens; Vinculum charitatis Dei quis poterit enarrare?

XL. I will depart, Ile go my wayes, whithersoever, &c.] Epiphanius Lib. 1. Haeres. 27., writing against the Carpocratians heresie, mentions these words of Clement's, but with some difference: and besides, he applyes them to another occasion and purpose, then to what Clement uses them heer. For telling you that Clement received imposition of hands from Peter, yet refused the Bishoprick of Rome, untill such time as Linus and Cletus were dead, he adds this reason; for he saies, saith he, in one of his Epistles, [...] &c. I depart, I go my wayes; onely let the people of God have rest and quiet­ness. Which words Clement heer prescribes to be us'd by the Corinthians, in case troubles or contention did arise in that Church through any of their means: ‘Is any one bravely spi­rited among you? &c. let him say, If through my means this sedition, or contention, or these schisms proceed, I wil depart. &c.’ Chrysostome hath a passage, (for which, if for any, he rich­ly deserved the title of Golden-mouth bestowed on him by anti­quity,) which while he pen'd; M^r Yong conceives he had his eye upon this of Clement: His words are; [...],Homil. 11. ad Ephes. &c. If you conceive or suspect these things of us, we are ready to depart, and to deliver up our power to whomsoever ye please: onely let the Church be at unity within it self. A rare temper! and not to be found among the men of this Age. Now because Clement, in what immedi­ately follows, doth commend the earnest endeavours and under­takings of Hethen men for the conservation of the peace and quiet of those States they liv'd in, I will parallel this place of Chrysostoms with one ascribed to the most eloquent of the race of Romulus; as he was esteemed of all the Christians: Ʋtilius duxi, Declam. in Sallust. Cicero­ni tributa. quamvis fortunam unus experiri, quàm universo populo Romano civilis essem dissensionis caussa.

XLI. Many Kings and Governours. &c.] He meanes such as Codrus, [Page 89] and Lycurgus, among the Grecians; Genucius Cippus, and M. Curtius, among the Romans; with others, in both Histories, endowed with the like brave and gallant spirits for the Public, not so generally taken notice of. Next after he bringeth in Ju­dith, who hazarded her own life to save the City wherein she dwelt; an Apocryphall story among the Jewes. That Clement thought it so, his placing it after mention of Hethen examples, though he instance in no particular, may serve for an argument. For there is scarce any Greec or Latine Historian of better note, that is not to be preferr'd, in matter of truth, before it, the Macchabees, or any other historicall piece in that [...], or collection of writers. Now if enough hath not been already said, in what goes before, for defence of Clement in this behalf,Num. XXIV. let the studious Reader take notice, that not onely Peter and Jude cite the Apocryphall writings of Enoch, and the latter the book also De dimissione Mosis, or of his Death; (though indeed, as the admired Jos. Sealiger hath well observed, those Fragments we now have of Enoch are more corrupt by later additions and interpolations of the Jews, then they were formerly in the Apo­stles times;) But Paul himself likewise hath made use of divers places in his Epistles, taken out of other Apocrypha of the Jews, as hath been observed by the Fathers of the Gr. Church. In the I. to the Corinthians out of the Apocrypha of Elias; in that to the Galatians, out of the Apocrypha of Moses; in that to the Ephe­sians, out of the Apocrypha of Jeremy. Not that it follows from hence, that the Apostle approved of all he found written in these books, any more then he approved the severall love-toyes, and amorous passages, in Menanders Comedies; an Iambic sen­tence out of whom notwithstanding he borroweth, as you heard before. See the incomparableExercit. sa­crar. lib. 18. cap. 2. Heinsius upon 1 Pet. 3.19.

In time of a raging pestilence, XLII. upon answer received from the Oracle.] I do not more readily remember any example of this kind, which I could think CLEMENT might intend to, then that of Oedipus. I conceived at first our Author might have had this out of some Gr. Tragedy of him. Examining Sophocles his Oedipus [...], as most likely, I received not so much satis­faction in my search, as in the excellent Latin Oedipus, which [Page 90] my learned good friend M^r Farnaby adjudges to L. An. Seneca, the very Siren of better Philosophy, against the judgement of Heinsius, from whom yet in other things it is not his custome to dissent. In that Tragedy conceive the Thebans afflicted, and onely not consumed, with a grievous pestilence. The Oracle consulted, returns Answer:

meaning Oedipus; who being acquainted therewith, to stop the current of this destructive evil, whereof his incest had been the cause, he strait sets forward to a voluntary exile, and is brought in bespeaking his languishing Citizens with this sad farewell, yet such as did bid good cheer and health to them after his de­parture:

This example suits just with Clement's purpose, but that you'l say the story is meerly poëticall. Let it be so: yet those words of Oedipus — fugio, exeo: remember me again of Clement's [...]. i. I will depart, I'le go my wayes.

XLIII. Become subject to your Elders.] Besides what hath been obser­ved before; Clement tels the Corinthians, that for one or two factious persons sake, their Church had rais'd a sedition against their Presbyters: He tels them in another place, that it should be the onely and earnest resolution of every noble, mercifull, and charitable Christian among them, forgetting and forsaking their own private aimes and interests whatsoever, [...]. to indeavour the Peace and quiet of Christs flock and peeple, and of the Presbyters placed over them. And in this place he adviseth those that had begun these troubles, and whose the ground-work was of this sedition, [...]. to repent, and by changing the pride of their tongue into the humility of heart, to become subject and obedient to [Page 91] their Presbyters. And read I say the whole Epistle over, and tell me then, whether solitary Episcopacy hath any ground therein, or any practice thereof can be proved from thence; or that the Church, either of Rome, or Corinth, were governed any other­wise, at that time when it was written, (at least so far as may be made to appear from any plain passage thereof,) then by Pres­byters: which notwithstanding hath been pretended more then once; and among others, as our Brethren of the Church of Scotland can bear witness, by one, who was sometime [...] among us, with a great deal more confidence, then successe.

Now what remaines there, but that the peeple of God, taking serious notice unto whom they owe obedience and subjection under Christ, in those things that belong to God, should with all readinesse and cheerfulnesse undergo and perform the same. And withall, [...]. Clem. having the Charter of their liberties and privi­ledges restored unto them again, as it were postliminiò, and so evidently asserted in respect of their particular prerogatives in the election (as it is in all reason and equity a thing indeed most fitting) of those Ministers and Officers, to whom they are to be­come subject; it becomes them to be very wary and prudent, and exceeding circumspect, that they neither admit any, or sub­mit themselves unto such, who have yet remaining upon their souls that [...], that servil capillitium, as Socrates expression is in Plato of some Magistrates made choice of at Athens. That they do not I say place such in eminence above them, and as it were at the Helm, who, if a right examination were taken of their life and qualities, would scarce be thought fitting to have a place assigned them at the very sink, or pump. They should providently bethink themselves what parts, what endowments, what conversation, what knowledge, what single­ness of soule, what command of affections is required to such an employment, to so weighty an undertaking; it being in­deed, ‘ [...],’ a business, which, if any other under Heaven, challengeth exact managing and steerage.

But if, through want of care and foresight herein, they chance to prove remiss, or, which is worse, shall be ready to re­ceive (without questioning them,) any whatever they be, that shall affect dominion over them and their consciences, they will therein but sin against their own souls, in betraying and giving up that Christian 1 Cor. 7.23. liberty of theirs, which cost so dear, to the insolency and mercilesse tyranny of no better then meer idiots; who as they are themselves altogether [...], so would they de­bar others of those meanes, which lead to the knowledge of heavenly mysteries; and not so only, but like the Pharisees in the Gospel,Matth. 23.13. shut up the Kingdome of Heaven against men; neither going in themselves, nor suffring them that are entring to go in.

XLIIII.* * * * * * *.] Concerning this lacuna, or hiatus, see M^r Yong in the end of his Notes. I could think a small parcell of that which is swallowed up, and lost therein by the injury of time, might be recovered out of Basil the Great De Sp. S. ad Amph loch. cap. 29.: [...]— But also the more antient Clemens saith; (to distinguish him from Clem. of Alexandria:) The words he cites out of him are these: [...]. i. God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and that Holy Spirit. It is not to be thought that Basil would cite this out of any suspected writing of Clement's; and we know that none, which now go under his name, were accounted genuine by the antients, except onely this Epistle we have in our hands. So likewise once I thought, that Clement's urging the autority of Sibylla for the judgement of the wicked by fire in the end of the world, might have been a portion of this breach, or of what we heer see lost; for which he is alleged by the AuthorResp. ad Quaest. 74. (common­ly Justin Martyr,) of the Questions ad Orthodoxes, [...], in his Epist. to the Corinthians. But the learned D^r Ʋsher Dissert. de Clem. & Ig­nat. script. cap. 10. p. 65. would have this passage taken out of Clem. II. Epist. unto them, which antiquity generally abjudicated from him; and the rather, because thoseExtant apud Lactan. l. de Ira Dei, c. 23. vide Casaub. Exerc. contra Baron. de Sibyllinis. Sibyllin verses to this purpose are since Clement's time, and written by the Christians; and so could not be made use of by him; though indeed Hethen men, Ovid, Seneca, and others before him beleeved the worlds finall con­flagration. Neither is it likely that Justin Martyr, being of [Page 93] that standing, and extraordinary learning, should suffer his be­lief to be abused with forgeries. Such impostures cozened and deluded after times; and in his, onely began to breed. So that I may use the citing of this passage out of Clement, as an additio­nall argument to those many others, to prove this writing to be none of Justins; notwithstanding that D^r Homes Animadver. against M. Tombs Instant-Bapt. cap. 13. p. 110. 111. religi­ous and learned Gentleman, troubles himself so much to assert and vindicate it to be his genuine work; which yet he will ne­ver perswade the learned world of men to beleeve. Hierom's Latin Translation, could it be but found, would clear all.

God the Beholder and Descryer of all things.] Gr. [...].XLV. A word onely to be found heer, and in Polycarpus his Epistle; who had it hence. The Holy Spirit is call'd by Nazianz. [...].

Our High-Priest, and Ruler.] XLVI. The learned and industrious Critique Photius, Patriarch of CP. me thinks is too Criticall in his censure of Clement for these expressions. The third thing that he takes exceptions against in this Epistle, is, that Clement calling our Lord Jesus Christ Our High-Priest and Ruler, he doth not withall bestow loftier titles upon him, and more be­seeming his Majesty, [...]. Certainly his mentioning of Christ in severall places is in very honorable terms; such as these; Christ Jesus our saving health; the High-Priest of our Oblations; The Guardian and Succourer of our weakness; By him we look up to the Highest Hea­vens, &c. By him it pleased the Lord to give us a tast of immortall knowledge, who being the brightness of his [...], which Ebr. 1. is [...]. see ver. 3.4. whence Clement hath this, and what follows next. Majesty, is by so far greater then the Angels, &c. Our Lord Christ Jesus the Scepter of the Majesty of God, &c. But indeed in the following sentence Photius bites in his words again; [...]. and yet he doth not, saith he, any way openly therein defame the name of Christ. Which I pray who could ever imagin that Clement would do?

Claudius, and Ephebus, and Valerius, Biton, and Fortunatus.] XLVII. By the hands of these five persons the Church of Rome conveyed this Pareneticall Epistle, or Hortatory to peace and mutuall conde­scension, to their Brethren of the Church of Corinth. I find no­thing recorded of them by the Antients; so that had it not been [Page 94] for this mention of them, they, together with their memories, might have perished in utter oblivion. It hath far'd better with severall Saints of the New Testament, for whom ingenious An­tiquity hath coyned Bishoprics, beside other fortunes. The me­mory of them however deserves respect, though but for this onely employment in Gods Church. Three of their names heer are meerly Roman. Whether one of them, Fortunatus, might be he, whom1 Cor. 16.17. Paul mentions, and by whom, with Ste­phanas, Achaïcus, and Timothy, his first to the Corinthians is said to be sent unto them, I dare not say: much lesse, that it was that Fortunatus, whom, inAntiq. l. 18. cap. 9. Josephus, Agrippa sends to Rome to make complaint to Caligula of Herod the Tetrarch; The time in neither respect will well bear it. Ephebus, is a Grecian name; as is also Biton; For we find one Biton, a long while before Clement's time, who was [...] to Alexander the Great, or the Measurer of his journeys in all his forreign Expeditions, whomLib. 6. cap. 17. Pliny mis-names Beton. I haveMS. Gr. in Biblioth. Col­leg. Magdal. Oxon. seen also some pieces of one Biton among the Greec writers of Mechanics, or about Mi­litary Engins, usually joyned withMalè Atha­nasius dictus Th. Jamesio in Eclogâ MSS. Athenaeus, an Author of the same subject, still extant in the armaries of some Libraries, but as yet unpublish't.

CLEMENT'S II. Ep. is yet remaining in some good part of it; but being rejected by the antients, as Eusebius, and Jerom out of him; and accounted supposititious, as Photius tels us, I have neglected therefore the Translation of it. Those other writings also, which go under his name at this day, are no better thought of by such as are most able to judge of things of this kind. No body will wonder that the holy forgery of former times made so bold with Clement, who doth either already know, or shall hear of, not onely so many Apocryphall Gospels under severall Saints names; of Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans; of theExtant lin­guâ Armen. v. D. Armach. in Ignat. Ep. ad Trall. not. 84. & Joan. Gregor. in Observat. &c. Corinthians Epistle to S^t Paul, and of his III. Extant lin­guâ Armen. v. D. Armach. in Ignat. Ep. ad Trall. not. 84. & Joan. Gregor. in Observat. &c. Epistle to the Corinthians in answer to theirs; of Seneca's and Paul's Epi­stles one to another; (wherewith good S. Jerom himself was de­ceived;) But of Aristotle de Pomo, Plato de Vacca, Ovid de Ve­tula, and others; in which writings, there is not onely hono­rable mention of Christ, but of the Virgin Mary likewise. [Page 95] The well meaning Christians of antient times had a pretty conceit in them, that by this fine cozenage they should with more ease win the Hethen to embrace their Religion, when they should see the Author, and chief professors of it, well spoken of by such great names as those before mentioned. But good men (as some errour is still incident to all forgery) they usually of­fended therein against the true account of Times, and as fowly, as at this day the Turks do in their wild Chronology, making S.Qui est ipso­rum Chederles. vid. Busbeq. epist. 1. George one of Alexander the Great's Commanders, and Alexander himself Salomon's Generall; as they do likewise (which to hear, and bear with it, we had need to have aswell pity, as patience,) make Job the Controuler of his HOUSE.